PR-CY MCP

create_project_note

Создать заметку по проекту — отметку о работах на сайте, привязанную к дате. Заметки видны на графиках и в таймлайне проекта. Присылай название и текст без эмодзи: хранилище их не принимает, поэтому такие символы вырезаются из заметки перед сохранением. Защиты от дублей нет: повторный вызов с теми же полями создаст вторую заметку, поэтому после неясной ошибки сначала проверь список через get_project_notes, а не повторяй вызов вслепую.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "note_date": "<note_date>"
    },
    "name": "create_project_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Название заметки, не более 200 символов. Без эмодзи — они будут вырезаны.
`text`	No	Текст заметки, не более 20000 символов. Без эмодзи — они будут вырезаны.
`note_date`	Yes	Дата, к которой привязана заметка, в формате YYYY-MM-DD. Проверяется только формат: подойдёт и прошедшая, и будущая дата.
`project_id`	Yes	Идентификатор проекта. Если известен только домен, получи проект через get_user_project_by_domain и возьми id оттуда.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Идентификатор заметки
`date`	Yes	Дата заметки в формате YYYY-MM-DD — именно дата, без времени и таймзоны
`name`	Yes	Название заметки
`text`	Yes	Текст заметки. Может быть пустой строкой (не null)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the tool is non-idempotent (a repeat call creates a second note), that emoji are silently stripped before saving, and where notes surface afterwards (charts, timeline). These are exactly the side effects an agent needs before calling a mutation.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then visibility, then the emoji constraint, then the retry hazard. Each sentence adds a distinct fact and the ordering puts the most decision-relevant information first.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and with 100% parameter coverage the schema handles field detail. For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers side effects, visibility, idempotency, and error recovery — nothing essential 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% and each field already documents its own limits, so the schema does most of the work. The description still adds cross-field instruction ("send name and text without emoji") and flags the storage-level behavior behind the constraint, though it partly restates what the field descriptions already say.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Создать заметку по проекту") and then defines what that resource actually is — a date-bound work mark visible on charts and the project timeline — which no schema field conveys. A reader can distinguish it from update_project_note and get_project_notes without opening either schema.

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?

It gives concrete operational guidance: check the list via get_project_notes after an unclear error rather than retrying blindly, because there is no duplicate protection. That names a sibling and the condition that selects it, though it does not explicitly contrast create vs. update_project_note.

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

All PR-CY MCP 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?