DevReply

Add an internal note

add_note

An internal note on a conversation, for the team only: the user never sees it. Shown in the inbox as written by this agent, in Markdown (lists, bold, code, links).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	The note, in Markdown, e.g. "Likely the iOS 26 export bug, see `bug:export`."
`conversation_id`	Yes	The conversation's id (from list_conversations or get_user).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note_id`	Yes	The note's id.
`conversation_id`	Yes	The conversation.
`visible_to_user`	Yes	Always false: notes are for the team.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / conversation_id / description

Added value: +"The conversation's id (from list_conversations or get_user)."

addedInput schema / properties / text / description

Added value: +"The note, in Markdown, e.g. \"Likely the iOS 26 export bug, see `bug:export`.\""

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "conversation_id": {
+      "description": "The conversation.",
+      "format": "uuid",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "note_id": {
+      "description": "The note's id.",
+      "format": "uuid",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "visible_to_user": {
+      "description": "Always false: notes are for the team.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "note_id",
+    "conversation_id",
+    "visible_to_user"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (mutating, non-idempotent, not destructive); the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: the note is invisible to the user, is attributed in the inbox as written by this agent, and renders Markdown. It omits duplicate behavior (annotations say non-idempotent, so re-posting creates another note) and any auth/permission expectations.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource and its visibility constraint, then the rendering/attribution detail. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining essentials: visibility to the end user, attribution, and supported formatting. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented and the text param already carrying a Markdown example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of Markdown constructs largely restates what the schema already says, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states exactly what is created — an internal note on a conversation — and immediately marks the scope that separates it from user-facing siblings: 'for the team only: the user never sees it.' An agent can tell this apart from reply_to_user or send_feedback without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear situational context for use ('internal', 'the user never sees it'), which tells the agent when this note type is appropriate versus a user-visible message. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or stating exclusions, so it does not reach the when/when-not/alternatives bar of a 5.

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

All DevReply 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?