Create a new Markdown note from a template or title only, place it in an optional existing subfolder, and return its path.
Creates a new note (from the template, or with just its title if empty is true) and returns its path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| empty | No | If true, the note only has its title. | |
| title | Yes | Title of the note. | |
| folder | No | Subfolder of the notes folder to create it in (optional; it must exist). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.5Input schema / properties / empty / descriptionPrevious value: -"Si es true, la nota solo lleva su título."New value: +"If true, the note only has its title."Input schema / properties / folder / descriptionPrevious value: -"Subcarpeta de la carpeta de notas donde crearla (opcional; debe existir)."New value: +"Subfolder of the notes folder to create it in (optional; it must exist)."Input schema / properties / title / descriptionPrevious value: -"Título de la nota."New value: +"Title of the note."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it usefully discloses that notes are created from a template unless empty=true and that the path is returned. However, it omits important behavior for a write operation: what happens if a note with that title already exists, whether creation requires auth, and error conditions.
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?
A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the core action and parenthetically qualifies it, with zero wasted wording.
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?
For a simple 3-parameter tool with fully documented parameters, the description is nearly adequate and helpfully states the return value in the absence of an output schema. It still leaves duplicate-title handling and failure modes unstated, which matters for a creation tool with no annotations.
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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates the 'empty' semantics. It adds only marginal value (the template-vs-title-only framing) beyond the structured field descriptions, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (creates) and resource (note), plus the two modes of creation and the return value. The create action is clearly distinct from the read/list/search siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 explains the meaning of the 'empty' flag but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent gets no routing help beyond the obvious verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.