add_noteCreate a persistent note with a title and body, then receive its generated ID for later retrieval or deletion.
Create a new persisted note with a title and body. Returns the generated note id, which is needed later to fetch or delete it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | The note's full text content. | |
| title | Yes | Short title for the note. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the note is persisted and returns a generated id, but says nothing about permissions, duplicate handling, size limits, or error behavior for 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the return-value note is a single efficient clause.
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 create tool with no output schema, the description helpfully discloses the return value (the note id), compensating for the absent output schema. Only auth/error context is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and both required params (title, body) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates them without adding format, length, or uniqueness semantics. Baseline 3 applies.
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 specific verb (Create) and resource (persisted note) with the two defining fields (title, body). It clearly differs from read-oriented siblings like get_note/list_notes, though it doesn't name any sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the mention that the returned id is 'needed later to fetch or delete it' hints at a create-then-get/delete workflow but never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.