Skip to main content
Glama

set_coach_client_notes

Replace the coach's private notes on a client. This overwrites the whole note: call get_coach_client_notes first and send the full intended text (append to it to add a line). An empty string clears it. Never shown to the client. (confirm-gated: previews until confirm: true)

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": {
      "clientId": "<clientId>",
      "notes": "<notes>"
    },
    "name": "set_coach_client_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesYes
confirmNoMust be true to actually execute. If false/omitted, returns a preview only.
clientIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false; the description adds the critical behavior that this is a full overwrite (not a merge), that an empty string destroys the note, that content is never shown to the client, and that calls without confirm return a preview rather than executing.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive overwrite warning, then the read-before-write workflow, then edge cases and the confirm gate. No filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers purpose, overwrite risk, prerequisite call, and confirm gating. Minor gaps: what the preview response contains and any scope/permission requirement for the clientId.

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 only 33%, but the description compensates for the most dangerous parameter by explaining that notes must contain the complete intended text and that an empty string clears it. clientId's meaning and the 20000-char limit are left to the schema naming.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Replace the coach's private notes on a client.' It also names the read counterpart (get_coach_client_notes) so an agent can distinguish it from the getter and, by implication, from update_session_client_notes.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit workflow guidance: call get_coach_client_notes first, send the full intended text, append to add a line, empty string to clear. It also flags the confirm-gated preview behavior, leaving little to infer.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.