Jornalo — futures trading journal

Write journal notes on a trade

annotate_trade

DestructiveIdempotent

Set the notes, quality grade and/or validation status on one trade. Only the fields you pass are written, and each one replaces its previous value (read the current notes first if you mean to append); an empty notes string clears them. By default the same fields are copied to the trade's mirrors in the user's other accounts (mirroredTo lists them).

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": {
      "tradeId": "<tradeId>"
    },
    "name": "annotate_trade"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	No
`mirror`	No	Also write the same change to this trade's mirrors in the user's other copier accounts. Default true.
`status`	No
`quality`	No
`tradeId`	Yes	Trade id from find_trades, list_trades or list_recent_trades_for_tagging.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes well beyond that by spelling out the overwrite model ('each one replaces its previous value'), the clearing case (empty notes string), and a non-obvious side effect: the same fields propagate to the trade's mirrors in the user's other accounts. That propagation detail is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with no filler, front-loaded on the write action, followed by overwrite semantics and then the mirroring default. Every clause carries information an agent needs to avoid a mistake.

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-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 40% schema coverage, the description covers the risky semantics (overwrite, clear, mirror) well. It would be fully complete with a sentence on what the status enum values mean and whether validation propagates or affects derived stats.

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 description coverage is only 40%, so the description has to carry weight, and it does for the two ambiguous params: notes (replacement/clear semantics) and mirror (copy to other accounts, default true, restating the schema hint). It adds nothing for status and quality beyond naming them, leaving the enum values (VALIDATED/INVALIDATED/BE, A+/A/B/C) unexplained.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('set') and the exact resources it mutates (notes, quality grade, validation status) scoped to 'one trade'. An agent knows precisely what it writes. It does not, however, draw a boundary against the sibling tag_trade, which is the most likely confusion point for this tool.

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?

Gives concrete operative guidance: only passed fields are written, each replaces its previous value, read first if you intend to append, and an empty string clears notes. It also states the default mirroring behavior and where the mirrors are listed. It stops short of naming when to prefer tag_trade or how validation status relates to other workflows.

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

All Jornalo — futures trading journal 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?