Caches short per-file notes that auto-invalidate on file changes; get notes before reading and set them after understanding to reduce context tokens.
Short per-file notes, auto-invalidated when the file changes. get before reading; set after understanding a file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | for set; ≤2000 chars | |
| files | Yes | ||
| action | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key trait: auto-invalidation on file change, plus the 2000-char note cap. It stays silent on what get returns for uncached or deleted files, and what clear removes.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what the cache is and its invalidation trait, then the call sequence. Nothing wasted.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the return shape for `get` (single note vs. map of file→note, behavior for misses) and the scope of `clear` remain unexplained. Adequate for the happy path, incomplete for an agent deciding how to consume results.
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 coverage is only 33%; the description explains the meaning of `note` (in 'set') and implicitly frames `files` as the per-file key, but the 'clear' enum value is never mentioned and the 1-50 batch limit is only in the 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 resource (short per-file notes) and its defining behavior (auto-invalidation on file change), which distinguishes it from siblings like project_notes. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it stops just short of 5.
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?
'get before reading; set after understanding a file' gives explicit workflow timing for two of the three actions. It gives no guidance for the 'clear' action or for when to prefer project_notes/outline instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.