Dexi Notes

Create note

create_note

Create a new note. Write the body as plain text — include #hashtags and @mentions inline and Dexi turns them into tags automatically. A line of the form key:: value (e.g. status:: reading, due:: 2026-09-10, rating:: 4) becomes a structured property that bases can filter and sort on (see query_base). Returns the created note with its id. If this connection is restricted to a folder or tag, the note is automatically filed into that folder and/or the tag is appended so the note stays within the connection's access.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "create_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	No	Note body as plain text. #hashtags and @mentions become tags automatically; a line like `status:: reading` becomes a structured property
`title`	No	Note title (optional but recommended)
`intent`	No	One short sentence on what you're trying to accomplish for the user — helps improve these tools; optional, keep personal details out

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedNov 5, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / intent / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "maxLength": 300,
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / intent / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
- addedInput schema / properties / intent / maxLength
```
Added value: +300
```
- addedInput schema / properties / intent / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```
First observedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare write/non-destructive/non-open-world; the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: automatic tag extraction, structured property parsing, the returned value including the new id, and the non-obvious side effect that a restricted connection auto-files the note into its folder and/or appends its tag. That last clause is exactly the kind of implicit mutation an agent needs to know before calling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and formatting rules are front-loaded and every sentence carries information. The final sentence about connection-restricted filing is long and tacked on, slightly bloating an otherwise tight definition, but nothing is genuinely wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is optional (and briefly covered anyway), and the description covers formatting, side effects, and follow-up usage. Minor gaps remain around validation limits (e.g. the title max length) and failure behavior, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns above baseline by giving concrete `key:: value` examples (`status:: reading`, `due:: 2026-09-10`, `rating:: 4`) and cross-referencing query_base as the filtering consumer. The `intent` parameter is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable at full coverage.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Create a new note') and immediately enumerates what creation entails: inline #hashtags/@mentions become tags, `key:: value` lines become structured properties, and the created note (with id) is returned. This is far more than a restatement of the name and makes it unmistakable versus create_base or update_note.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives strong how-to-call guidance — write plain text, use inline #hashtags/@mentions, use `key:: value` for properties — and points to query_base as the consumer of those properties. It stops short of explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives routing (e.g. create_note vs update_note or create_base), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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

All Dexi Notes tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?