SpecStream

Leave a note

add_note

Destructive

Adds a note to a project or a record. Each person the note @mentions gets an email.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "expected_version": "<expected_version>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "add_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`text`	Yes
`record_id`	No
`project_id`	No
`collection_id`	No
`expected_version`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, open-world, destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that @mentions trigger emails, but it does not explain the destructiveHint, required expected_version semantics, permissions, or other side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the most important side effect. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a six-parameter mutation with no schema descriptions and no output schema. The description is too thin to explain the required id and expected_version fields, target selection across project/record/collection, or what happens after the note is added.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for six parameters, so the description must compensate. It only hints at project/record targeting and @mention handling in text, while leaving id, expected_version, and collection_id unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Adds a note to a project or a record.' This makes the core action clear, but it does not distinguish the tool from siblings like list_notes or resolve_note, and it omits collection targets despite collection_id in the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives. The use case is only implied by the opening sentence, leaving the agent to infer how this differs from resolve_note or list_notes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SpecStream tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.