add-noteAdd a private internal note to a Chatway conversation. The note is visible to authorized teammates and is not sent to the customer. Use send-message instead when the customer should see the text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | Private note text, up to 10,000 characters. Only visible to teammates. | |
| conversation_id | Yes | UUID of the conversation to add the note to. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / content / descriptionPrevious value: -"Private note content."New value: +"Private note text, up to 10,000 characters. Only visible to teammates."Input schema / properties / conversation_id / descriptionAdded value: +"UUID of the conversation to add the note to."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "note": {
+ "properties": {
+ "content": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "conversation_id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "created_at": {
+ "description": "ISO 8601 timestamp.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-read-only and non-destructive; the description adds the key behavioral fact that the note is visible to authorized teammates and never sent to the customer. It does not mention that repeated calls create duplicate notes despite idempotentHint=false, which is a minor remaining gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero waste, with the audience/visibility constraint front-loaded before the alternative-tool routing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, audience, and routing. Only the duplicate-on-repeat behavior is left unstated for a non-idempotent write tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in-schema, including the 10,000 character limit and UUID format. The description only reiterates that content is teammate-visible, adding little syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Add a private internal note to a Chatway conversation') with the scope qualifier 'private internal' that immediately separates it from public messaging.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Names the alternative sibling explicitly ('Use `send-message` instead when the customer should see the text') and gives the exact condition that selects it, so no inference is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.