Fill gaps in Markdown notes by generating UUIDv7 frontmatter ids, optionally scoped to a folder or previewed via dry run.
Add UUIDv7 ids to Markdown notes that lack a frontmatter id.
UUIDv7 values follow RFC 9562 and are time-ordered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | No | optional folder scope | |
| dry_run | No | list notes without ids without modifying them |
| 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 provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly indicates that the tool modifies notes ('Add ids') and explains that dry_run lists notes without modifying them, effectively disclosing its destructive and non-destructive modes. It could be more explicit about the irreversible nature of the write operation, but it is largely transparent.
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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and includes a supplementary detail about UUIDv7 ordering. No unnecessary words 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?
Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It provides enough context about the operation, the dry_run behavior, and the technical standard (RFC 9562) for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool. The description is complete for this simple tool.
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?
Both parameters (folder and dry_run) have schema descriptions, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only repeating 'optional folder scope'. According to the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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: adding UUIDv7 ids to Markdown notes that lack a frontmatter id. The verb 'Add' is specific, and the resource and condition are explicitly defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_frontmatter or write_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 when notes lack ids and explains the dry_run option, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., manual updates via update_frontmatter) or state when not to use this tool. This leaves some ambiguity about the recommended context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.