CherryTree MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_node

Create a new rich-text node in a CherryTree document. Supports full XML formatting and verifies writes with an automatic byte-level audit, restoring backups on failure.

Instructions

Create a new rich-text node.

Args: name: Node title. content: Plain text body (ignored if content_xml is set). content_xml: Raw CherryTree XML body — supports full formatting: segments with attributes (weight="heavy", foreground="#RRRRGGGGBBBB", background, style="italic", underline="single", strikethrough="true", scale="h1"|"h2"|"h3"|"h4"|"h5"|"h6"|"small"|"sup"|"sub", family="monospace", justification="left"|"center"|"right"|"fill", link="webs URL"|"node UID"|"file BASE64"|"fold BASE64", indent="1"-"3"), (char_offset, syntax_highlighting, frame_width, frame_height), (char_offset, col_widths), (char_offset, anchor for anchors, filename for embedded files). char_offset = position in concatenated plain text where widget is rendered; each widget occupies 1 char in the count. parent_id: Parent node ID (0 = top-level). tags: Space-separated tags. is_bold: Bold title. foreground: Title color hex (48-bit GTK: #RRRRGGGGBBBB). custom_icon_id: Icon ID.

Returns: Confirmation message followed by byte-by-byte audit report: [AUDIT] readback, delta, change region, prefix/suffix integrity, node count, target node identification, XML parse result. On XML parse failure, backup is restored automatically (ROLLBACK).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`tags`	No
`content`	No
`is_bold`	No
`parent_id`	No
`foreground`	No
`content_xml`	No
`custom_icon_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses key behaviors: content is ignored if content_xml is set, a byte-by-byte audit report is returned, and backup restoration occurs automatically on XML parse failure. It does not discuss permissions or side effects beyond creation, but it is detailed for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but every section serves a purpose: an immediate one-line purpose, structured Args with meaningful detail, and a Returns section explaining audit and rollback behavior. The XML formatting detail is essential for correct invocation and is well organized.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is unusually complete: it explains all parameters, return behavior, and failure recovery. The main completeness gap is the lack of guidance on how this tool relates to create_node_with_codebox and what happens with invalid parent or foreground values.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain every parameter. It does so thoroughly, including the parent_id default, text vs XML precedence, the full rich-text XML attribute list, char_offset semantics, tag format, and 48-bit GTK color format.

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 begins with 'Create a new rich-text node,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly explains what the tool does, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling create_node_with_codebox, which also creates nodes with code-related content.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_node_with_codebox or update_node_content. The description implies general node creation but never states exclusions or selection criteria.

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

Deploy Server