claw-mcp-toolkit

productivity_note

Create structured notes with timestamps, titles, content, and tags to organize information and track productivity tasks.

Instructions

Create a structured note with timestamp

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "productivity_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	Note title
`content`	Yes	Note content
`tags`	No	Comma-separated tags

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Mar 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that a timestamp is included (useful context), but fails to disclose where the note is persisted, whether the operation is idempotent, what format the timestamp uses, or what the tool returns upon creation.

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?

The description is extremely brief at six words with zero redundancy and clear front-loading. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, this brevity leaves critical behavioral gaps, suggesting it is slightly under-sized for the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite low parameter complexity, the absence of an output schema and annotations means the description should indicate what happens to the created note (e.g., returned in response, stored to a file, appended to a database). It currently provides no indication of the operation's result or side effects beyond the input transformation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage (title, content, tags all documented), the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no specific parameter guidance beyond implying the general structure, warranting the baseline score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource as a 'structured note with timestamp,' which distinguishes it from sibling productivity tools like 'productivity_reminder' or 'productivity_calendar_event.' However, it could explicitly clarify when to choose this over 'productivity_task_breakdown' for capturing information.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create a note versus a task breakdown or reminder) and lists no prerequisites or constraints.

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