Create a note with a title and body, then add optional lowercase tags to filter notes later.
Create a note. Tags are optional lowercase labels used for filtering.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| title | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| tags | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| created_at | Yes | ||
| updated_at | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower, but the description adds little: it doesn't say whether the created note is returned, whether duplicate titles are allowed, whether tags must already exist, or what tags do at write time. Only the tag-format rule (lowercase, optional) adds behavioral value.
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 the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is doing real work on the only non-obvious parameter.
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 needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a 3-parameter creation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the definition leaves required-ness, duplicate handling, and tag prerequisites unaddressed.
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 carry the load. It does explain the 'tags' parameter (optional, lowercase, filtering semantics), but says nothing about 'title' or 'body' beyond the names, and doesn't state that both are required.
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 and resource ("Create a note") that maps cleanly onto the CRUD sibling set (get_note, update_note, delete_note). It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with update_note or explain whether the note is created in a shared store, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus update_note or how it relates to search_notes/list_tags. The only usage-adjacent hint is that tags are 'used for filtering', which implicitly points at search_notes but never says so.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.