twenty_create_noteCreate a note. title is required; body holds the note content. (Attaching to records via noteTargets is out of scope.) Twenty REST: POST /rest/notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | The note content/body. | |
| extra | No | Passthrough object of additional/custom fields merged into the request body verbatim. | |
| title | Yes | The note title (required). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There is a direct contradiction: the description states the tool 'creates' a note (a non-destructive operation), while annotations declare destructiveHint=true. This misalignment is misleading and severely undermines trust. Additionally, the description provides no behavioral details such as side effects, permissions, or return behavior.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes the REST endpoint for reference. Every sentence adds useful information without unnecessary verbosity.
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?
The tool has no output schema and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the created note object) or what errors might occur. The destructiveHint contradiction further confuses the expected behavior. For a create operation, the description is underspecified.
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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little on top. It does restate that title is required and body holds content, and mentions noteTargets is out of scope, but the latter is not a parameter. Since schema coverage is complete, the description's marginal semantic addition keeps this at baseline.
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 'Create a note' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes this tool from sibling create tools for other entities (company, opportunity, person, task). It also mentions that attaching to records via noteTargets is out of scope, further clarifying its capabilities.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only contextual hint is the out-of-scope note about noteTargets, but it does not name any alternative tool or state conditions for use. The tool name implies its purpose, but the description offers no actionable selection criteria.
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.
Each tool follows a clear action-entity pattern, so there is no overlap; even the metadata listing is distinct from record operations. No two tools could be confused.
All tools use the twenty_<verb>_<entity> convention with verbs create/get/list/update, in lowercase snake_case. Naming is perfectly consistent across the set.
20 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range but justified by five core entities each needing create/get/list/update. However, the count feels a bit heavy, especially without delete tools.
The server covers create, read, and list for all entities, and update for most, but lacks delete operations entirely and does not support updating notes. These are notable gaps in full lifecycle management.