palace-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

append_note

Append text to the end of an Obsidian note, creating the note if it doesn't exist. Use to add content without overwriting existing notes.

Instructions

Append text to the end of a note (creates the note if it doesn't exist).

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "append_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`content`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a non-obvious side effect: the note is created if it does not exist. However, it does not mention whether a newline/separator is inserted, how path resolution behaves, or what happens on failure.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part earns its place by stating the operation, the target, and the creation behavior.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-string-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the main gotcha (auto-creation). The remaining gaps are path semantics and explicit alternative routing, which are relatively minor given the sibling names and low complexity.

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%, and the description only vaguely maps 'content' to 'text' and 'path' to 'note'. It does not explain what path should refer to, whether it is a filesystem path or note identifier, or whether content is appended verbatim. The compensation is thin given the lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Append text to the end of a note') on a clear resource ('note'). The parenthetical 'creates the note if it doesn't exist' adds a distinguishing behavior that separates it from similar siblings like write_note or read_note.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly conveys when to use this tool: when the goal is to add content to an existing note, or create a note by appending initial text. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the append-versus-write context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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

Deploy Server