Create a new journal entry with rich text HTML content, title, and mood/emoji to log thoughts and experiences clearly.
Create a new journal entry with rich text content
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mood | No | Mood (e.g., happy, sad, neutral, excited, anxious) | |
| emoji | No | Emoji | |
| title | Yes | Entry title | |
| content | Yes | Entry content as HTML (rendered in Tiptap). Use <p> for paragraphs, <h2> for headings, <ul><li> for lists. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly states that this creates a new journal entry, making the mutating nature clear. It does not mention response behavior, potential duplicates, or other side effects, but for a straightforward create operation this is a reasonable but not thorough disclosure.
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 concise sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and the object, making it immediately scannable and useful for an agent.
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?
The tool is simple: four flat parameters, no enums, no nested objects, and no output schema. The schema fully documents inputs, and the description clearly identifies the operation. The only minor gap is that no return value or success behavior is described, but this is not critical for invoking the tool correctly.
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%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters and their meanings. The description adds only 'rich text content,' which aligns with the content parameter but does not materially improve parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('journal entry') and adds the content mode ('rich text content'). This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from the sibling journal tools like list_journal_entries, get_day_entry, and toggle_journal_todo.
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 intended usage is implied by the verb 'create' and the resource 'journal entry', so an agent can infer when to use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to other journal tools, though no competing create tool exists among the siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.