Simpler.Asia

sticky_note_create

Create a sticky_note.

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": {
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "sticky_note_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`color`	No
`width`	No
`height`	No
`content`	Yes
`z_index`	No
`position_x`	No
`position_y`	No
`triggers_at`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's silence on safety is not fatal. However, it adds zero context beyond them: nothing about defaults for color/position/z_index, what triggers_at does, or whether repeated creates duplicate notes.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

It is short, but only because it is under-specified rather than economical. There is no front-loaded scope, constraint, or behavioral note to redeem the single sentence.

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

Completeness1/5

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

An 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage needs the description to carry real weight. It instead provides nothing about semantics, defaults, or effects, making correct invocation largely guesswork.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. Fields like triggers_at, z_index, and the color enum are left completely unexplained, so an agent has no basis for choosing values.

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

Purpose2/5

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

"Create a sticky_note" merely restates the tool name and title with no added specificity. It doesn't say what a sticky note is in this system, what content it holds, or how it differs from the many other *_create siblings.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as sticky_note_update, sticky_note_list, or sticky_note_dismiss. The agent must infer the role of this tool entirely from the name.

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?