Skip to main content
Glama

task_note

Destructive

Create structured briefs or free-text notes for tasks and items to capture goals, context, steps, pitfalls, dependencies, and completion criteria.

Instructions

A note a task owns: an item's brief, a rule its items share.

Not a memory: only task_read() returns it. A note on items is a brief: goal, context, steps, pitfalls, done_when and depends_on are required, extra_info is optional, and they read back under the labels GOAL: / CONTEXT: / STEPS: / PITFALLS: / DONE WHEN: / DEPENDS ON: / EXTRA INFO:. A note on the whole task is free text in body.

Free text cites another item only as [[#id]], which reads back as its current number and label; a label -- a title, an item's text -- never carries one. To a person, name it item n of its task.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uidYesthe task.
bodyNoa note on the whole task, up to 4000 characters; it errors beside a brief field.
goalNowhat the item must achieve.
itemsNothe ids of the items the note is on, such as "4812,4815"; empty or "-" is the whole task.
stepsNohow to do it, in order.
titleNoup to 120 characters.
deleteNowith note_id, removes that note.
contextNowhat the work needs to know: where it lives, what binds it.
note_idNo0 creates a note; another id edits that note, where an empty field keeps its text and a field given replaces only its own.
pitfallsNowhat goes wrong, and how to avoid it.
done_whenNohow to tell the item is finished.
depends_onNonone, or the ids of the items this one waits for, each with an optional reason in parentheses ("4812 (why), 4815"). A deleted item reads back as deleted "its text".
extra_infoNoanything else worth knowing; optional.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.16.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and non-read-only, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real context ('only task_read() returns it', body 'errors beside a brief field'), but it never discloses the destructive/deletion behavior implied by the delete parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The prose is dense and poetic rather than front-loaded with the tool's action; the opening sentence is a definition, not a verb. Most sentences carry substantive information (labels, [[#id]], body free-text rule), so it is not padded, but the cryptic phrasing costs clarity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 13-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description explains note structure and read-back format but leaves the create/edit/delete operations to the schema and never warns that deletion is destructive. It is adequate but not fully self-contained given the tool's complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by adding semantics not in the schema: read-back labels (GOAL:/CONTEXT:/STEPS:/PITFALLS:/DONE WHEN:/DEPENDS ON:/EXTRA INFO:), the [[#id]] citation rule, and how labels never carry an id. These clarify how field values are interpreted and echoed back.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description defines what a note is ('A note a task owns: an item's brief, a rule its items share') but never states the tool's action verb (create/edit/delete), which is only recoverable from the schema's note_id/delete fields. It does differentiate the resource by noting only task_read() returns it, but the core purpose is conceptual rather than operational.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The line 'Not a memory: only task_read() returns it' gives some routing context away from the memory tools, and the required brief fields imply when a structured brief applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance against siblings like task_comment, note, or task_add.

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