Create and save Markdown-formatted notes directly to flomo from your MCP workflow. Use it to capture ideas, tasks, or summaries without leaving your current app or chat.
Write note to flomo
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | Text content of the note with Markdown format |
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Write' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the note is saved permanently, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a write 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 at just three words ('Write note to flomo'), with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently communicates the essential purpose.
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?
For a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after writing (success confirmation, error handling, where the note appears), nor does it provide important behavioral context needed for a mutation 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents the single 'content' parameter with its type and format. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 action ('Write note') and target resource ('to flomo'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, with no sibling tools mentioned, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or contextual constraints. It simply states what the tool does without any usage instructions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.