Skip to main content
Glama

hjarni

by com.hjarni
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

notes-create

Create a new note. Required: title (string). Always include a 2-3 sentence summary too (required by convention, even though the schema only enforces title) so the note is useful to future LLM sessions. Optional: body (Markdown with [[id:Note Title]] wiki-links), summary, source_url, container_id, tag_list (comma-separated), team_id (to create in a team), review_after (ISO 8601 datetime, only set this for time-boxed notes that should flag themselves stale after a date). A new note starts verified (status 'active'). Example: {title: 'Meeting Notes', body: '## Agenda\n...', container_id: 5, tag_list: 'meetings, q4'}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoNote body content (Markdown with [[id:Note Title]] wiki-links)
titleYesNote title (required)
summaryNoA 2-3 sentence summary of the note. Always provide one.
team_idNoCreate note in this team instead of personal space. Omit it (or send null) for personal space.
tag_listNoComma-separated list of tags (e.g., 'ruby, rails, testing')
source_urlNoSource URL reference
container_idNoContainer ID to place the note in
review_afterNoOptional ISO 8601 datetime after which the note should be treated as stale. Use for time-boxed notes (e.g. '2026-12-31').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / team_id / description
      Previous value: -"Create note in this team instead of personal space"New value: +"Create note in this team instead of personal space. Omit it (or send null) for personal space."
    • changedInput schema / properties / team_id / type
      Previous value: -"integer"New value: +[
+  "integer",
+  "null"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / review_after
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional ISO 8601 datetime after which the note should be treated as stale. Use for time-boxed notes (e.g. '2026-12-31').",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / summary / description
      Previous value: -"Short summary of the note"New value: +"A 2-3 sentence summary of the note. Always provide one."
  4. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / tag_list / description
      Previous value: -"Comma-separated list of tags"New value: +"Comma-separated list of tags (e.g., 'ruby, rails, testing')"
    • changedInput schema / properties / title / description
      Previous value: -"Note title"New value: +"Note title (required)"
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only mark readOnlyHint false, etc., offering no behavioral detail. The description compensates by disclosing that a new note starts with status 'active' and that summary is required by convention even though the schema only enforces title. It also explains wiki-link syntax and the meaning of review_after. This adds value beyond annotations and schema.

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?

The description is well-structured with 'Required', 'Optional', and an example. It front-loads the purpose, then lists parameters with clear usage hints, and ends with a concrete example. Every sentence adds value, and the length is justified given the 8-parameter tool.

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 create operation with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary operational details: required title, summary convention, optional parameters with usage context, the resulting status, and an example. An agent can call this correctly without additional information.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive comments, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning: it highlights that title is required, summary is required by convention, review_after is only for time-boxed notes, and team_id controls the target space. This goes beyond simple schema text, earning a 4.

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 opens with 'Create a new note', a specific verb+resource pair, and the name notes-create reinforces it. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like notes-update, notes-delete, and notes-list by explicitly stating it creates, and the surrounding text adds scope (personal vs. team, containers, tags).

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 clearly states when to use it (to create a note) and gives conditional guidance: use team_id for team creation, only set review_after for time-boxed notes, and always include a summary. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like notes-update for editing, but the context is unambiguous for a creation tool.

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

All hjarni toolsInspect
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