Manage notes on FamilySearch Family Tree persons. List existing notes, add a note with subject and text, or delete a note by its ID.
Notes on a Family Tree person. Actions: list · add (subject + text) · delete (noteId).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| noteId | No | ||
| subject | No | ||
| personId | No | Tree person id, e.g. "KWZP-6X3" | |
| changeMessage | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns by listing the delete action. However, the description does not go beyond the action list to explain side effects, prerequisites, or behaviors like requiring personId for certain actions. It adds minimal contextual value beyond what annotations and schema already provide.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and presents a compact action list. There is no filler or redundancy; it is extremely efficient.
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?
With 6 parameters, no output schema, and low schema documentation, the description is only minimally sufficient. It lists actions and some parameter hints, but it does not specify required parameters per action (e.g., list likely needs personId), nor does it mention changeMessage. An agent may struggle to correctly invoke the tool without additional context or examples.
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 only 17% (only personId is described), so the description must compensate. It partially does by mapping actions to parameters: 'add (subject + text)' and 'delete (noteId)'. However, it does not explain the meaning of subject/text, nor does it clarify parameter requirements for list or the changeMessage field. The compensation is incomplete given the low schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's resource ('Notes on a Family Tree person') and enumerates three concrete actions (list, add, delete), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like person or relationship. The scope is specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description implies usage by identifying the resource and actions, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool. There are no alternative routing criteria or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.