Vaultbeat MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Add to note

log_note_append

Append a line to a day's note without erasing existing content. Use for adding a second event to the same day, preserving earlier entries.

Instructions

Add a line to a day's note WITHOUT erasing what is already there (agent write).

There is one note per (kind, day). This tool appends your text to it on a new line and cannot delete what is already written.

The second note of a day is the normal case, not the exception — a morning event and an evening one — and log_note would replace the first with the second. Symptoms do NOT go here: use log_symptom, which keeps type, severity and timing as fields a later analysis can match.

Reach for log_note ONLY when you intend your text to become the note's ENTIRE contents and whatever is there now to be deleted (e.g. correcting something you yourself wrote a minute ago).

kind="general" for day events worth joining against sleep/HRV later, kind="mood" for emotional state. (sleep/menstrual notes stay iOS-authored — this tool refuses them.) date = LOCAL calendar day "YYYY-MM-DD" (default today). Read back via get_notes.

The result is the same shape log_note returns. replaced_text is always null here — that null is the receipt that this call deleted nothing. Encrypted end-to-end before it ever leaves this machine.

partner=true records a note ABOUT your partner ("she had a stomach ache this morning"). It is stored in YOUR account and sealed to you and this machine only — your partner's account is never touched, and it never mixes into your own notes: plain reads leave it out, get_notes(partner=true) returns it. Default false = a note about you.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`date`	No
`kind`	No	general
`text`	Yes
`partner`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.9.1Oct 3, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / partner
```
Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "title": "Partner",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
First observedv0.8.1Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: it cannot delete existing content, `replaced_text` is always null as a 'receipt', it refuses sleep/menstrual notes, it is end-to-end encrypted before leaving the machine, and `partner=true` isolation semantics. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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?

It is long but front-loads the core append semantics, then layers distinctions and parameter notes. Every paragraph earns its place, though a few parentheticals could be tightened. The structure is logical and readable.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, a mutation with no destructive annotation, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, what it refuses, how to read back via `get_notes`, parameter meanings, and return shape (same as `log_note`, `replaced_text` always null).

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it explains `kind` values 'general' vs 'mood' and that sleep/menstrual are refused, `date` format is LOCAL 'YYYY-MM-DD' defaulting to today, `partner=true` records a note about the partner stored in your account and excluded from plain reads, and `text` is the appended line.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb+resource with scope: 'Add a line to a day's note WITHOUT erasing what is already there.' It immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling `log_note` by contrasting append vs. replace behavior, so an agent can select correctly without inspecting schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit when-to-use (append to an existing note, the normal case of a second note of the day), when-not-to-use (`log_note` only when replacing the entire contents), and points to an alternative for symptoms (`log_symptom`). This is exactly the routing guidance needed among several sibling write tools.

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