create_noteCreate a new markdown note in your vault, auto-creating folders from the note ID path. Store content or start blank to organize and retrieve information efficiently.
Create a new markdown note. Folders are created from the id path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | No | ||
| note_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}New value: +truev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the folder-creation side effect and the markdown format, which are useful. However, it omits error behavior, idempotency, and how the tool handles an existing note_id, so some significant behavioral gaps remain 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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The action is stated first, and the key behavioral detail (folder creation) is clear and concise. Every word earns its place.
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 simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core action and a notable side effect. It doesn't address conflict or error scenarios, but given the simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the definition is nearly complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to note_id by explaining that folders are derived from the id path, which is valuable. The content parameter is not mentioned, but its default of '' and the word 'note' make it largely self-explanatory.
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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('markdown note'), and it adds a distinctive detail: folders are created from the id path. This distinguishes it clearly from the many sibling tools, even though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 usage is implied by the name and verb: use when you want a new note. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, such as when to prefer append_note or patch_note over create_note. It's sufficient but not directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.