Save decisions, findings, and how-to notes to a local knowledge base, with optional tags and project labels, and return the new note ID.
Save a note (a decision, a finding, a how-to). Returns its id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| project | No | default |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds only that the tool returns an id; it says nothing about persistence scope, permission requirements, duplicate handling, or whether tags/project must pre-exist. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage that is a substantial gap.
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, zero waste, with the purpose front-loaded before the return-value note. Its brevity is a virtue structurally, though it shades into under-specification for a 4-parameter write tool.
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?
An output schema exists, so 'Returns its id' being terse is acceptable, but with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and an undocumented project-scoping parameter, the definition leaves an agent without enough to call this correctly in a multi-project store.
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% and the description mentions none of the four parameters — not title, text, tags, or project. The non-obvious 'project' parameter (default 'default') and the tags array are completely undocumented anywhere, so the description does not compensate at all for the coverage gap.
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?
Specific verb+resource ('Save a note') plus a parenthetical naming the kinds of content it holds (decision, finding, how-to), which makes the intent concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling update_note, so an agent must infer that 'Save' means create-new rather than amend-existing.
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 content-type examples imply when this tool is appropriate (capturing decisions, findings, how-tos), but there is no explicit routing versus update_note, get, or search, and no statement about when not to use it. Usage is inferable but not guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.