Skip to main content
Glama

Add job note

add_job_note

Add a plain-text note to a job's Notes tab, signed with the user's name and today's date, to record job context without notifying staff. Notes can be reviewed through job details.

Instructions

Add a text note to a job's Notes tab.

Adds a plain-text note to the job, signed with the signed-in user's name and today's date, as the Notes tab's New Note does. No staff member is notified and it reaches no one. get_job lists the notes.

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": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>",
      "note": "<note>"
    },
    "name": "add_job_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteYesPlain text.
job_idYesJob ID from list_jobs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.3

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds real value beyond that: the note is signed with the user's name and today's date, and critically that no staff member is notified and it reaches no one. It does not state error or permission behavior, keeping it below 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. 'No staff member is notified and it reaches no one' is slightly redundant, but it earns its place by preventing accidental expectation of notification.

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-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, attribution, and how to verify results via get_job. It is nearly complete, though it says nothing about failure modes (e.g. invalid job_id).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented (note is 'Plain text.', job_id comes 'from list_jobs'). The description's mention of signature/date formatting is about resulting content rather than parameter meaning, so it adds little beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Add a text note to a job's Notes tab.' No sibling tool touches job notes, and the target object (job) plus destination (Notes tab) are unambiguous.

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?

Gives clear context — mirrors the Notes tab's New Note behavior and points to get_job for reading notes back. It does not name exclusions or competing alternatives (e.g. when to prefer a status update or time log instead), so it stops short of a 5.

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