Skip to main content
Glama

ainote

by io.github.seunghan91

dev_doc_write

Create or update a dev doc (non-destructive). action: create | update. Deletion is a separate tool (delete_dev_doc). (consolidated surface — same handlers as the legacy tools) Required per action — create: title, content | update: content.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo[update] Document UUID
modeNo[update] Update mode (default: replace)
titleNo[create] Filename as title (e.g., ainote-memory.md, project-claude.md) [update] Document title
actionYeswhich operation to run
contentNo[create] Full file content (markdown, json, yaml, text) [update] New content
categoryNo[create] Subcategory: memory | claude | cursor | env | docs | custom. Default: docs [update] Subcategory to disambiguate title
local_pathNo[create] Absolute path on this machine (e.g., ~/.claude/projects/-Users-seunghan/memory/MEMORY.md). Used by pull_dev_docs to restore file on other devices. Supports ~ expansion. [update] Update the local file path for multi-device sync
memory_typeNo[create] Memory update semantics: 'state' = latest value replaces the past (used by memory_search latest_state mode), 'event' = immutable accumulating log, 'preference' = user preference. Omit for plain documents. [update] Set the memory update semantics (state | event | preference). Pass null/empty to clear.
content_typeNo[create] Content type. Auto-detected from title extension if omitted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explicitly labeling the operation as 'non-destructive' and noting it is a 'consolidated surface — same handlers as the legacy tools'. This informs the agent about the tool's nature and provenance, which is not present in the 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?

The description is extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It packs essential details (actions, non-destructive nature, per-action requirements, deletion alternative) without any filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 params, 4 enums) and the rich schema descriptions, the description provides sufficient high-level context to select and invoke the tool. It covers the essential action/parameter logic. A minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly tie into the sibling 'dev_docs_read' tool, but this is not critical for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema has 100% parameter descriptions, the description adds a critical layer by summarizing the conditional requirements: 'create: title, content | update: content'. This is not evident from the schema's 'required' field (only 'action' is required), and it directly helps the agent construct a valid invocation.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create or update a dev doc'. It explicitly identifies the resource (dev doc) and the actions (create/update). It also differentiates from siblings by noting that deletion is handled by a separate tool (delete_dev_doc), making its scope unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: it tells the agent which parameters are required per action ('create: title, content | update: content') and explicitly says deletion is a separate tool, preventing misuse. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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

All ainote 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools clearly target distinct resources (tasks, docs, graph, sync, env_sync, handoffs, judgments, projects, vault). A few pairs could confuse, like sync_push vs vault_sync (which has a push action) and env_sync_write vs env_sync_txn_push, but descriptions mostly clarify boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are predominantly snake_case with a noun_verb pattern (e.g., sync_push, task_write), but there are notable inconsistencies: plural/singular mismatches (dev_docs_read vs dev_doc_write, tasks_read vs task_write), verb-first names (list_papers, get_setup_guide, judgment_submit), and a dotted sub-namespace (env_sync.secret_pull) mixed with flat names (env_sync_txn_push).

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is a large surface for a personal note/sync server. While it spans many domains (auth, tasks, docs, sync, env_sync, graph, etc.), the sheer number feels heavy and likely overwhelms agents with too many choices, especially when several tools are consolidated sub-action surfaces.

Completeness3/5

Most domains have reasonable CRUD coverage (tasks, dev docs, graph, sync, env_sync, vault). However, noticeable gaps exist: memory has no write tool (only read), papers only support listing (no create/update/delete), assumptions have write but no dedicated read or delete, and judgment is effectively submit-and-list only.

Resources