Skip to main content
Glama

Pinto Notes

by com.pintonotes
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create

create

Creates a note, a folder or an app. A note: path "Work/Acme.md" (its name is its title; folders are made as needed) and content, its markdown. In a note's folder ("Work/Acme/Agenda.md") it becomes that note's sub-note. A folder: path "Work/Clients/". An app: path is the note that becomes the app (existing, or new like "Work/Habits.md"); it starts as a React + TypeScript + Tailwind + shadcn/ui project whose README.md says how apps run here, or, with template, as that pintonotes.com template's app, its data and its note. Notes are markdown: checklists "- [ ] item", links to notes [[Title]], and a tracker is a table with a line like above it (keep values in range).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesWhere: "Work/Acme.md", "Work/Clients/", or the app's note.
typeNoDefault note.
pinnedNo
contentNoA note's markdown.
templateNoAn app: start from this template's app, data and note (its name, as in pintonotes.com/templates/habit-tracker).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / template
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "An app: start from this template's app, data and note (its name, as in pintonotes.com/templates/habit-tracker).",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: folders are auto-created, a note placed inside a note's folder becomes a sub-note, apps scaffold a React/TS/Tailwind project, and templates pull in app+data+note. It stops short of stating what happens when the target path already exists or whether it overwrites.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, but the remainder is a dense run-on of parentheticals and asides. The trailing markdown/tracker convention paragraph is useful only indirectly and inflates the definition well past what a create tool needs.

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 annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers creation semantics across all three modes thoroughly. Remaining gaps are minor: no statement of overwrite/duplicate-path behavior, no mention of `pinned`, and no indication of what the call returns.

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 already 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully expands it: it explains how `path` is interpreted per type (title derived from name, trailing slash = folder, app note) and what `template` references. The one gap is `pinned`, which is undocumented in both description and schema.

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?

The first sentence names a specific verb ("Creates") and enumerates the three resources it can produce (note, folder, app), then details each mode's path semantics. It is clear on its own, but it never contrasts itself with the close siblings "write" and "edit", so an agent must infer which one to reach for.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is heavily implied through per-mode path examples ("Work/Acme.md", "Work/Clients/", app note path), which effectively tells the agent how to invoke each variant. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among write/edit/move, which is where this tool's ambiguity lives.

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

All Pinto Notes 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