Create a new note in Evernote to save ideas, tasks, or reference material from your MCP client. Use it when you need to capture text content without leaving your AI workflow.
Create a new note in Evernote.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.416Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden and delivers nothing beyond the name: no auth/connection prerequisites, no statement of what is required to create a note, and no note about whether existing content is affected. It is essentially a tautology of the tool name.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is achieved by omitting necessary information rather than by tight editing.
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, no output schema, and no declared parameters, the description is far too thin. An agent has no basis for knowing what inputs to supply or what preconditions to satisfy before calling it.
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?
The schema declares zero parameters, so per the rubric this is at baseline 4, but for a creation tool an empty input schema is itself a red flag: the description does not mention title, body, or notebook, which one would expect a create call to require. It adds no semantic value to compensate for the suspiciously empty schema.
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 a note) and the evernote_ prefix ties it to Evernote, so the purpose is discernible. However, it does not differentiate from the generic sibling 'create_note' or the other Evernote note tools (evernote_update_note, evernote_read_note), and gives no indication of what a note consists of.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. It does not mention that 'connect_evernote' may be a prerequisite, nor when to prefer this over the generic 'create_note' sibling. The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.