Create IMA notes from Markdown content, optionally placing them in a specified folder by ID or name. Use it to save structured notes directly into your IMA workspace.
用 Markdown 内容创建 IMA 笔记。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | ||
| folder_id | No | ||
| folder_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a write/mutation operation but says nothing about side effects, whether a missing folder is auto-created, permission requirements, or what happens on duplicate names (a sibling ima_check_repeated_names hints this matters).
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 short sentence with the verb and format front-loaded, and no padding. Its problem is under-specification rather than verbosity, which is penalized elsewhere.
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 3-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% schema descriptions, one sentence is not enough. The agent cannot resolve folder targeting behavior or confirm the tool's relationship to the append/import siblings.
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% across 3 parameters, and the description only clarifies that 'content' is Markdown. It adds no meaning for folder_id vs folder_name — whether both can be set, which wins, or whether an unknown folder_name is created — which is exactly the ambiguity an agent needs resolved.
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 and resource ('create IMA note') with the content format (Markdown), which is more than a tautology. But it never distinguishes itself from the sibling ima_append_note, which is the key ambiguity an agent faces when deciding how to add content to an existing note versus creating a new one.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus ima_append_note, ima_import_urls, or ima_add_note_to_knowledge, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.