Append content to an existing Markdown note in the vault, preserving the original file.
Append content to an existing Markdown note.
Only .md is supported.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | vault-relative path, such as 'folder/note.md' | |
| content | Yes | content to append | |
| separator | No | separator between existing and appended content (default: "\n\n") |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates the tool modifies an existing note (implying it does not create new ones) and the .md-only constraint. However, it does not detail edge cases such as behavior when the note does not exist, whether the separator is added automatically, or the return value. This is a minor gap but acceptable for a simple append operation.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It delivers the essential information without any fluff or redundancy. The constraint about .md is stated efficiently.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is mostly complete. It explains the core action and the file type restriction. However, since no output schema is provided and no return value or error behavior is mentioned, an agent might not know whether the tool returns the updated note or a success status. This is a minor omission that could affect slightly more complex use cases, but for a basic append operation, the description suffices.
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 covers all three parameters with clear descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds an extra constraint ('Only .md is supported') beyond the schema, which provides additional context for the path parameter. No parameter is left unexplained, and the meaning is clear.
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 function: 'Append content to an existing Markdown note.' It specifies the resource (Markdown note) and the action (append), and the constraint 'Only .md is supported' further clarifies scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like write_note or create_note.
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 for adding to an existing note but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like write_note or create_note. The constraint about .md files is mentioned, but no direct comparison or when-to-use guidance is provided. The agent must infer from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.