Simpler.Asia

contact_note_create

Add a note to a contact — the same door as the granular tool, extended only to accept contact_name, contact_email or contact_phone in place of contact_id. A name match must be unique: more than one hit refuses, listing the candidate ids; zero matches on every alias refuses with the runnable two-step call to create the contact first, then retry. NEXT: contact_upsert when no contact exists yet.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "contact_note_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`content`	No
`contact_id`	No
`contact_name`	No	No contact_id handy? Resolves the contact by exact name — a unique match wins; ambiguity refuses with the candidate ids.
`contact_email`	No	Resolves the contact by exact email when contact_id is absent.
`contact_phone`	No	Resolves the contact by exact phone when contact_id is absent.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the write, non-idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing concrete refusal behavior: ambiguity lists candidate ids, and zero matches returns a runnable two-step remediation. It does not address retry/duplication semantics for a non-idempotent write, which is the one behavioral gap.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the operation and the one thing that differentiates it, then failure modes, then the next-step pointer — no filler. Slightly compressed phrasing ('the same door as the granular tool') costs a small amount of clarity for the space saved.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 5-param write with no output schema, the description covers resolution strategy, failure paths, and the alternative tool. What it leaves out is the payload: 'content' is never mentioned, and the schema lists zero required parameters, so an agent gets no signal that a note needs body text.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 60%, and the schema's own descriptions already explain the alias resolution for name/email/phone, so the description largely restates rather than extends that. It says nothing about 'content' (the actual payload, capped at 5000 chars) or about contact_id precedence when multiple identifiers are supplied.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a note to a contact') and immediately scopes it against the granular sibling: it is the same operation, extended only to accept contact_name/contact_email/contact_phone in place of contact_id. An agent can tell exactly which tool variant this is without opening 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes: use the alias form when contact_id is not handy, and 'NEXT: contact_upsert when no contact exists yet' names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it. It also states when the tool will refuse rather than proceed (ambiguous name, zero matches), which is usage guidance at the failure boundary.

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

All Simpler.Asia 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.

Resources

Need Help?