Append text to a section in an Obsidian note, creating the section if it does not exist.
Insert text at the end of the section under heading, adding the
section at the end of the note if it is missing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| heading | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: text is inserted at the end of an existing section, and a missing section is appended to the note. It explains the mutation and fallback clearly, though it omits return/error behavior.
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-structured sentence with no filler. The primary action and conditional fallback are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
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 three-parameter mutating tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the main workflow and fallback behavior. However, it leaves the path parameter implicit and does not mention heading-matching caveats, making it adequate but not fully complete.
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 clarifies heading and text semantics well, but 'path' is only implied by 'the note' and not explicitly defined. Meaning is added for two of three required parameters.
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 names a concrete action ('Insert text') and a specific target ('section under heading'), including fallback behavior when the section is missing. This clearly differentiates it from note-level siblings like append_to_note.
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?
Usage is implied rather than explicit: an agent can infer this tool is for adding text under a heading, and that a missing section will be created. However, there is no when-not guidance or explicit distinction from append_to_note and similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.