Record learning notes with a knowledge tag, automatically filing them into topic-specific folders in your Obsidian vault.
Create a learning note with a knowledge/* tag. Topic 'fastmcp' writes to 03-Knowledge/FastMCP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| topic | No | default |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| created | No |
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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the knowledge/* tag convention and topic-to-folder mapping (e.g., 'fastmcp' → 03-Knowledge/FastMCP), but says nothing about permissions, idempotency, overwrite behavior, or error handling for a write operation.
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 short sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action before the routing detail. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, against sibling capture_* tools the description lacks when-to-use context, and it only partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage on title and body.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the topic parameter by explaining its routing effect, but title and body are left undocumented beyond their obvious names.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('learning note'), and describes the tagging and routing behavior. It distinguishes the tool from generic capture siblings by naming the note type, though it does not explicitly contrast with capture_quick, capture_work, or capture_distill.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the other capture_* siblings. The phrase 'learning note' implies a context, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.