mcp-server-scaffold

note_write

Writes a note to a sandboxed markdown file, backing up any existing file before writing so content is never overwritten blindly.

Instructions

Writes a note to a markdown file inside the sandbox folder. If the file already exists it is backed up first, never overwritten blindly.

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": {
      "filename": "<filename>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "note_write"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`append`	No
`content`	Yes
`filename`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does add important behavioral context: existing files are backed up before writing, and blind overwrites are avoided. It does not, however, explain append behavior, permissions, sandbox limitations, or what happens on failure, so transparency is partial.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The core operation and the safety behavior are front-loaded appropriately.

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

Completeness2/5

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

There are no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, so the description needs to do more. It covers the high-level write and backup behavior but omits parameter semantics, append behavior, and return/failure expectations, leaving notable gaps for a three-parameter mutation tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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 for the three parameters. It does not mention filename, content, or the append flag at all, leaving their semantics entirely to the bare schema; append is especially important because it changes whether existing content is replaced or extended.

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?

The description states a specific verb (writes) and resource (a note to a markdown file) with clear scope (inside the sandbox folder). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool echo, but the operation is specific enough that confusion is unlikely.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use the tool: when you want to write a note to a markdown file in the sandbox. However, it does not state explicit conditions for use, exclusions, or alternatives such as echo, leaving usage guidance implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools

echoA
note_writeB