Skip to main content
Glama
ianderso

gramps-evidence-mcp

by ianderso
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

add_note

Create research or general notes and attach them to a person, event, or source to log reasoning about conflicting evidence or transcriptions.

Instructions

Create a research/general note, optionally attached to an object.

Use notes for research logs, reasoning about conflicting evidence, or transcriptions. Attach to a person/event/source by giving target + target_type. Any length is written in one call; a server error says whether anything was.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesThe note text.
targetNoOptional object handle/gramps_id to attach the note to.
note_typeNoNote type, e.g. 'General', 'Research'.General
target_typeNoType of the target: 'person', 'family', 'event', 'source', 'citation', 'place', 'repository', 'media'.
allow_new_typeNoAccept a type that is neither a Gramps standard type nor one of the tree's custom types, creating it as a new custom type. Only when meant: a near-miss is refused with the closest names.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / allow_new_type
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Accept a type that is neither a Gramps standard type nor one of the tree's custom types, creating it as a new custom type. Only when meant: a near-miss is refused with the closest names.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing atomicity and failure semantics ('Any length is written in one call; a server error says whether anything was'), which tells the agent it won't be silently partially written. Auth requirements and return payload are not covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded purpose in the first sentence, then usage, then behavior; every sentence carries content. Minor deduction for the truncated final clause ('a server error says whether anything was') and the stray blank line that slightly interrupt readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description should ideally say what comes back (e.g. the new note handle); it only gestures at this via the error-semantics sentence. Otherwise a mutation tool with annotations and full schema coverage is adequately documented for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by explaining the semantic coupling between two parameters ('Attach ... by giving target + target_type'), which the schema lists separately without stating that relationship.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a ... note') and immediately qualifies scope with the optional attachment to an object. The verb clearly separates it from the read sibling get_note, and the 'research/general' qualifier ties it to the note_type parameter an agent will see in the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete usage contexts ('research logs, reasoning about conflicting evidence, or transcriptions') and the how-to for attaching ('giving target + target_type'). It does not name exclusions or contrast with near neighbors like add_research_task, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools