Save a new project idea to a local vault and return its stored ID for later reference.
Capture a new idea in the local vault. Returns the stored idea with its id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| category | No | feature | |
| priority | No | medium | |
| description | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden. It discloses the storage location ('local vault') and the return shape, but says nothing about permissions, side effects, duplicate handling, or what happens to the entry after capture. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves significant gaps.
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 the action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'Returns the stored idea with its id' is largely redundant given that an output schema exists, which keeps it just short of a 5.
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?
The output schema covers return values, so that omission is fine, but a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation is under-described. Nothing warns about required versus optional fields or the defaulted category/priority values.
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% across six parameters (title, project, tags, category, priority, description) and the description mentions none of them. An agent learns nothing about what a 'project' must be, what values category or priority accept, or how tags are handled.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('Capture a new idea') and scopes it to the 'local vault', which clearly separates it from list_ideas, search_ideas, update_idea_status and export_ideas_markdown. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the create-versus-read/update distinction is unmistakable.
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?
There is no when-to-use clause, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as update_idea_status for ideas that already exist. The only hint is the word 'new' in the purpose statement, so the agent must infer the routing itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.