Append Markdown content to an IMA note and automatically embed referenced images from local paths, URLs, or data URLs, with ordered batching and failure handling.
向 IMA 笔记末尾追加 Markdown 内容，并自动把内容里引用的图片（本地路径、file://、http(s) URL 或 data URL）内嵌进笔记。图片仅支持 PNG/JPEG/WebP 且必须严格小于 3MiB；连续文本合并为一批，每张图片单独一批，按原顺序逐批追加，失败即停。dry_run 可预览分批。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | No | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| note_id | Yes | ||
| file_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses accepted image sources, format limits (PNG/JPEG/WebP), a strict <3MiB size cap, batching semantics (text merged into one batch, one batch per image, ordered append), and fail-fast behavior on error. It omits auth/permission requirements and what a partial failure leaves behind.
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?
Front-loaded with the action and resource, then packed with the operational constraints an agent needs (formats, size cap, batching order, dry_run) in a few dense clauses with no filler.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical write behavior, image constraints, and failure mode well. The unexplained file_path parameter and the absence of any statement about what a successful or partially failed call returns leave a real gap.
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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains content (Markdown), dry_run (batch preview), and implies note_id, but file_path is never mentioned at all — an agent cannot tell whether it is an alternative to content, a supplementary upload path, or something else, which is an invocation hazard for this tool.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('向 IMA 笔记末尾追加 Markdown 内容') and adds the distinguishing capability of auto-embedding referenced images. It implicitly separates this tool from the plain ima_append_note sibling, but never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts with it.
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 context is only implied: it applies when the Markdown content references images that need embedding. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over ima_append_note, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance, leaving the agent to infer the choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.