Add a note to a Paperless-NGX document to record an audit trail or progress update; returns the document's full notes list after saving.
Add a note to a document. Use this to record an audit trail or progress note directly on the document. Returns the document's full list of notes after the note is added.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The document ID | |
| note | Yes | The note text to add |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the effect and the return payload ('Returns the document's full list of notes after the note is added'), but says nothing about required permissions, whether the note is mutable or deletable afterward, or failure behavior when the document ID does not exist.
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?
Three tight sentences with the action front-loaded, followed by usage context and the return value. No filler or redundancy.
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 two-parameter create tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, a usage scenario, and the return payload. It is nearly complete; only auth/idempotency details are absent.
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 100% and the schema already documents 'id' (document ID) and 'note' (note text with minLength 1). The description adds no syntax, format, or length guidance beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Add a note to a document') that cleanly separates it from sibling tools like list_document_notes and delete_document_note. The sentence also clarifies the note is attached to the document itself, not a global record.
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?
Offers a concrete use case ('record an audit trail or progress note directly on the document'), which implies context, but does not state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g. update_document, custom fields) for recording information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.