NoteKing MCP

noteking_create_project

Create a new NoteKing project workspace with a name and optional description to organize notes, ADRs, and developer documentation.

Instructions

Create a new note project workspace in NoteKing

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "noteking_create_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Name of the project workspace
`description`	No	Detailed description of the project workspace

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It does not say whether the call is idempotent, whether names must be unique, whether permissions are required, or what the response contains (e.g. the new project identifier).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least indicate what is returned and any side effects or uniqueness rules. None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to predict the result of a successful or failing call.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already explains 'name' and 'description'. The description adds no extra meaning such as length constraints, defaults, or whether description is optional at creation time. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new note project workspace in NoteKing'. An agent can distinguish this from noteking_create_note or noteking_get_project by the resource noun alone. It stops short of explicitly differentiating scope from siblings such as noteking_update_project.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no statement of what happens if a project with the same name already exists. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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

Deploy Server