cortexpad

add_changelog_entry

Add a short, dated changelog entry to a note — structured evidence of a change (e.g. "Bumped reply target 3-5 → 8-10"), separate from and never touching the note body by default. Purely additive: does not overwrite or clobber content. Two ways to use it: (1) create a NEW numbered entry — if anchor is given (exact or substring text of an existing line), a small "((n))" marker pointing to the new entry is appended to that line, failing if anchor doesn't match any line (call get_note first if unsure of the exact text); without anchor the entry is note-wide with no inline marker. (2) append to an EXISTING entry via appendTo: n (e.g. 3 for an existing "((3))" marker) — adds another dated comment/update under that same marker without creating a new marker or number; fails if entry n doesn't exist yet. appendTo and anchor are mutually exclusive — anchor is ignored when appendTo is set. Use section (e.g. "update", "note") to label what kind of entry this is when a marker accumulates several over time — the UI groups/filters by section. Use this instead of update_note/append_to_note when recording a decision or change without altering the visible note text. Capped to the most recent 20 entries total across all markers.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`at`	No	Optional ISO 8601 timestamp to backdate this entry to when the real-world event actually happened, instead of the moment this tool call runs — e.g. logging a reply that was posted on X two days ago should carry that post's actual date, not today's, since "day"/"week" goal progress reads this field. Defaults to now if omitted.
`id`	Yes	Note ID
`text`	Yes	One-line changelog entry text
`anchor`	No	Optional: text of the line to mark with a new ((n)). Substring match, case-insensitive. Ignored if appendTo is set.
`section`	No	Optional free-text label grouping this entry (e.g. "update", "note") — useful when a marker accumulates entries from different threads.
`appendTo`	No	Optional: an existing changelog entry number (e.g. 3 for "((3))") to append this as another comment/update under, instead of creating a new marker. Fails if that entry number doesn't exist.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: 'Purely additive: does not overwrite or clobber content', failure conditions ('fails if `anchor` doesn't match any line'), cap ('Capped to the most recent 20 entries'), and precedence ('`anchor` is ignored when `appendTo` is set').

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?

The description is detailed but well-structured, opening with purpose, then explaining modes, failure cases, and alternatives. Slightly long, but every sentence adds information relevant to correct invocation.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Covers all major aspects: purpose, modes, failure, cap, section usage, and relation to alternatives. No output schema, but the tool's return is not central. Completeness is strong for a 6-param tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema already covers all parameters (100%), and the description adds contextual meaning: explains how `anchor` and `appendTo` interact, how `section` groups entries, and backdating behavior for `at`. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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?

The description clearly states 'Add a short, dated changelog entry to a note' with scope ('separate from and never touching the note body by default'), and explicitly distinguishes from siblings like update_note/append_to_note via 'Use this instead of...'.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this instead of update_note/append_to_note when recording a decision or change without altering the visible note text.' Also details two usage modes (new entry with anchor, appendTo existing) and when each applies, plus mutual exclusivity and failure conditions.

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

All cortexpad tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: note CRUD, checklist operations, label management, changelog entries, settings, and task queries. Descriptions explicitly differentiate between append vs. update, list vs. get, check vs. uncheck, and add vs. remove, so there is no ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_label, get_note, check_item, update_note), with consistent verb choices. Even 'get_my_tasks' and 'uncheck_item' fit the pattern, so the naming is predictable and uniform.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools is well-scoped for a notes application with checklist, label, and changelog features. Each tool covers a distinct operation without redundancy or bloat, and the count sits comfortably within the ideal 3-15 range.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers full CRUD for notes, plus checklist management (add, check, uncheck), label management (add/remove), changelog entries, settings retrieval, and task aggregation. Minor gaps like archive/unarchive and a dedicated label list are workable, so the surface is near-complete for the domain.

Resources

Need Help?