NoteKing MCP

noteking_append_to_note

Append Markdown sections or log entries to an existing note by ID without overwriting its prior body.

Instructions

Safely append a Markdown section or log entry to the end of an existing note without overwriting its prior body

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "noteking_append_to_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Unique identifier of the note to append content to
`content`	Yes	Markdown section or log entry to append to the end of the note body
`separator`	No	Separator inserted between existing note body and appended content (default: '\n\n')
`render_markdown`	No	Whether to return rendered HTML in the response

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses the core append-only, non-overwriting behavior but leaves out failure behavior (e.g., nonexistent note), permission requirements, and what the response contains. 'Safely' is vague and not substantiated.

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?

It is a single tight sentence with the destructive-vs-append distinction front-loaded. The only minor waste is the unearned adverb 'Safely'.

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?

Given a low-complexity mutation tool with a fully described schema, the description covers the essential scope. However, with no output schema it should at least indicate what is returned after appending and how missing-note cases behave.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond that, not explaining the separator or render_markdown behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('append') and resource ('note'), and scopes it to the end of an existing note. The phrase 'without overwriting its prior body' clearly distinguishes it from an update operation such as noteking_update_note.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied: append when you want to add content without replacing the note body. However, the description does not explicitly name noteking_update_note or state when-not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer the alternative.

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

Deploy Server