idea-base-mcp-server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

add_work_note

Append a timestamped status update to a task's activity log, recording progress so future sessions can resume work. Notes are append-only and never overwrite each other.

Instructions

Append a timestamped work note (status update) to a task's activity log. Use this to record progress so a future session can pick up where you left off (e.g. "finished auth handler, tests green, next: wire the callback"). Notes are append-only and never overwrite each other.

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": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>",
      "note": "<note>"
    },
    "name": "add_work_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	Yes	The work note / status update text
`task_id`	Yes	The ID of the task to add a work note to
`is_internal`	No	Whether the note is internal-only (hidden from customers). Defaults to true for work notes.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv2.2.0Oct 1, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / author_kind

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Who authored this note: \"ai\" (default, your own update) or \"human\" (you are relaying something the user said).",
-  "enum": [
-    "ai",
-    "human"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}

First observedv1.2.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that notes are append-only and never overwrite each other, that entries are timestamped, and that they land in the task's activity log. It does not state permission requirements or what the call returns, which are the remaining gaps for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the motivating use case, then the immutability guarantee. The parenthetical example earns its place by showing the expected note shape; no sentence is filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 3-parameter append tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and its key behavioral guarantee. It could have noted whether the writer is attributed or whether the note is visible to customers by default beyond the is_internal hint.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so task_id, note, and is_internal are already documented, including the internal-only default. The description adds no further syntax, format, or length constraints on the note text, so it merely matches the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (append) and resource (timestamped work note on a task's activity log), and the parenthetical '(status update)' plus 'future session can pick up' clearly separates it from a plain comment. It never names the sibling add_comment however, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear when-to-use scenario ('record progress so a future session can pick up where you left off') with a concrete example. It does not mention when NOT to use it or point at alternatives like add_comment or set_resume_context.

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