sync_granola_notesPull the user's newest Granola notes into their brain right away instead of waiting for the six-hourly sync. Queues the sync and returns; notes appear over the next minute or two. Say it was queued, not that it finished.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important async behavior beyond the annotations: it queues the sync and returns, notes appear over the next minute or two, and the agent should report it as queued rather than completed. This is exactly the kind of behavioral guidance an agent needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: the purpose, the async return behavior, and the user-facing wording guidance. No filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, this description fully covers what an agent needs: what will happen, when results appear, and what to tell the user. Nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed for this tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific action (pull newest Granola notes now), the resource (Granola notes), and the distinction from the periodic six-hourly sync. It also clarifies the async nature by saying it queues the sync and returns, so an agent knows what the tool actually does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly states when to use this tool: when the user wants notes immediately instead of waiting for the six-hourly sync. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.