Capture a thought, link, or fragment into an Inbox without classifying it, so you can keep ideas without interrupting your current work.
Put a thought, link or fragment in the Inbox without deciding where it belongs. Use when something is worth keeping and classifying it now would interrupt the work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | What to keep. | |
| title | No | A title; derived from the text otherwise. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: capture defers classification and lands the item in an Inbox rather than a categorized location. However it says nothing about authentication, persistence/durability, duplicate handling, or what the agent gets back, which matters for a write tool.
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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the usage condition.
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?
For a simple two-parameter capture tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and timing adequately. Minor gaps remain around persistence and what happens to the captured item afterward.
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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema by noting that content may be a 'thought, link or fragment' rather than just the generic 'text' field.
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?
States a concrete action ('Put a thought, link or fragment in the Inbox') and the object it produces ('Inbox'), which distinguishes it from siblings like never4ga_work_create or never4ga_decide. It is clear about the resource, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.
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?
Gives an explicit trigger condition with a rationale: 'Use when something is worth keeping and classifying it now would interrupt the work.' This is genuine when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. use never4ga_decide when classification is warranted) or stating exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.