healthie_create_noteCreates a note/chat entry in Healthie (additive). Requires content (the note text); optionally attach it to a client (user_id) or mark it as an org chat. GraphQL: mutation createNote(input: createNoteInput).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | The note text. | |
| user_id | No | The client/user the note is about. | |
| org_chat | No | True if created in the organization chat context. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotation contradiction: the description says 'additive' and 'creates a record', while annotations declare destructiveHint: true. These directly conflict. No other behavioral disclosure beyond this contradiction is provided (e.g., idempotency, side effects), so transparency fails.
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?
Two sentences provide purpose, requirement, and optional parameters, followed by an optional GraphQL note. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose, the language is direct, and every word earns its place.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the note creation returns or whether it is idempotent. The annotation contradiction (destructiveHint vs 'additive') creates confusion about expected behavior. While the operation itself is simple, the lack of return info and safety reconciliation leaves gaps for an AI agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description slightly enhances parameter meaning by explaining user_id as 'attach to a client' and org_chat as 'mark as org chat', but these are largely redundant with the schema and do not add substantial new semantics.
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 clearly states 'Creates a note/chat entry in Healthie (additive)' with a specific verb and resource. The title echoes this by marking it as WRITE. This distinguishes it from siblings like healthie_create_task, which targets tasks rather than notes.
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 gives context on how to use the tool ('Requires content', 'optionally attach it to a client... or mark as org chat') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like healthie_create_task, nor does it give any exclusion criteria. Usage is implied rather than directly instructed.
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.