Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fastmcp-notes

fastmcp-notes

by ketcx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_note

Create a new note with a title, content, and optional tags to build a searchable knowledge base.

Instructions

Create a new note.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "create_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNo
titleYes
contentYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core mutation ('Create'), but does not mention side effects, persistence behavior, required permissions, validation failures, or what happens on success. This is minimal disclosure 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely concise, with no filler or redundant clauses. However, it is so sparse that it nearly restates the tool name, making it under-specification rather than effective concise communication.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple flat create operation with an output schema present, the basic purpose is covered. But with no annotations and no usage or behavioral context, important details like tag optionality, response shape, and side effects are left entirely to inference or the schema, leaving clear gaps.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention title, content, or tags at all. The schema provides the raw property names, types, and required/default information, but the description adds no semantic meaning and fails to compensate for the lack of parameter docs.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states a specific action ('Create') and resource ('a new note'), which distinguishes it from the read/search/delete sibling tools. It lacks any additional scope or detail about what a note consists of, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about prerequisites, and no exclusions. The verb 'create' implies use for new notes, but the description fails to explicitly say when search_notes or read_note would be more appropriate.

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