Skip to main content
Glama

personalbrain-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

brain_create_or_update_note

Create or update a note with markdown content. Requires npub for credit billing.

Note style. Prefer plain prose. Reserve bold for rare critical flags only — a ⚠️ caution, an unconfirmed-status note — never for ordinary emphasis, labels, or whole clauses. Overusing bold buries the links and makes notes hard to scan; let thought-links and source links carry the visual emphasis. Put web sources on a quiet "Sources:" line rather than bolding labels like "TL;DR" or "Source". Linking to other thoughts. To link from inside a note to another thought, write a wikilink: [[Thought Name]] or [[Thought Name|display text]]. The tool resolves it to the correct in-plex thought link automatically — do not hand-write brain:// URLs or paste GUIDs. If a name is ambiguous or not found, the tool leaves the [[...]] literal and returns it in unresolved; disambiguate by pinning the id with [[#]]. For external web pages, use normal markdown links: text.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
npubNoRequired. Your Nostr public key (npub1...) for credit billing.
brain_idNoThe ID of the brain (uses active brain if not specified)
markdownYesMarkdown content for the note
dpop_tokenNo
thought_idYesThe ID of the thought

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: requires npub for credit billing, automatically resolves wikilinks, leaves unresolved [[...]] literals and returns them, and advises against hand-writing brain:// URLs. This adds significant context beyond a simple 'create or update' statement.

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 description is well-structured with clear paragraphs for note style and linking, but it is longer than strictly necessary. The style guidance is useful but somewhat opinionated and could be condensed without losing core tool usage information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be described. The description covers purpose, requirements, and detailed content formatting, but omits create-vs-update semantics (e.g., whether it overwrites) and lacks tool-selection guidance. It is adequate but leaves gaps for a tool with this many siblings.

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?

With 80% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description substantially enriches the meaning of the 'markdown' parameter by detailing note style, bold usage, wikilink syntax, and disambiguation via [[#thoughtId]]. It does not add to dpop_token or thought_id, but the markdown additions are meaningful and compensate partially for the missing dpop_token description.

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 description states a clear action and resource: 'Create or update a note with markdown content.' This distinguishes it from siblings like brain_append_to_note (append-only) and brain_get_note (read-only), though it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with brain_update_thought.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as brain_append_to_note or brain_update_thought. The extensive style and linking instructions relate to content formatting, not tool selection, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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

All personalbrain-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes. For example, `brain_request_credential_channel` and `brain_request_patron_credentials` serve similar roles, and `brain_receive_credentials`, `brain_receive_npub_proof`, and `brain_receive_patron_credentials` all handle receiving data from a courier flow. While descriptions help, the sheer number of tools (83) with similar-sounding purposes (check_ vs get_ vs request_ vs receive_ prefixes) makes it hard to quickly distinguish which tool to use.

Naming Consistency3/5

The tools mostly follow a `brain_verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `brain_create_thought`, `brain_delete_link`), which provides some consistency. However, there are inconsistencies with prefixes like `brain_oracle_` (e.g., `brain_oracle_about`, `brain_oracle_how_to_join`) which are more like static pages than actions. Additionally, 'check' and 'get' seem interchangeable (e.g., `brain_check_balance` vs `brain_get_thought`), and 'list' is used alongside 'get' in a way that sometimes means the same thing (e.g., `brain_list_brains` vs `brain_get_brain`).

Tool Count2/5

83 tools is an extremely large and unwieldy surface area. While the server aims to be a comprehensive 'operating system' for a specific ecosystem (DPYC/Nostr), this many tools will lead to agent confusion and high latency. Tools like `brain_oracle_about`, `brain_oracle_how_to_join`, and `brain_oracle_network_advisory` could easily be combined into a single tool or served as function parameters.

Completeness4/5

For its stated domain (managing a 'brain' with credits, payments, and Nostr integration), the tool set is remarkably complete. It covers CRUD operations, payment flows (purchase, check, restore), coupon management, credential handling, and even notarization. Minor gaps are hard to identify, though some flows feel overly complex (e.g., the multiple `request_`/`receive_` patterns could arguably be simplified). The high number of tools is a result of this extreme specialization.

Resources