Convert markdown files into Joplin notes by importing them directly into notebooks for organized note management.
Import a markdown file as a new note.
Args:
args: Import parameters
file_path: Path to the markdown file
Returns:
Dictionary containing the created note data
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a new note, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover permissions, error handling, or side effects. It mentions a return value ('Dictionary containing the created note data') but lacks details on structure or potential failures.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured sections for args and returns. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the 'args' section could be more directly integrated. Overall, it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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?
Given no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic operation and parameter but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, and return value structure. For a write tool with undocumented parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
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 documents one parameter ('file_path: Path to the markdown file'), which matches the single parameter in the schema. However, it doesn't explain format expectations (e.g., absolute vs. relative paths, file extensions) or validation rules, leaving gaps in understanding.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Import a markdown file as a new note.' This specifies the verb ('import'), resource ('markdown file'), and outcome ('new note'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_note', which might create notes from other sources.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'create_note' for non-markdown creation or 'search_notes' for finding existing notes. There's no context about prerequisites, such as file accessibility or format requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.