Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Antinote MCP

Antinote MCP

Official
by maferland
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

create_note

Create a new note in the live Antinote app via URL scheme; the app may open. Saving is not confirmed, so retrying can create duplicate notes.

Instructions

Create a new note in the live Antinote app using its URL scheme. May open the app. Dispatch does not confirm saving. Read snapshot is unchanged. Retrying may create duplicates.

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": {
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "create_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses a UI side effect (app may open), the absence of a save confirmation, that the read snapshot is unaffected, and the concrete duplicate-creation risk on retry — a practical elaboration of idempotentHint=false.

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?

Five terse, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the fragmentary style ('Read snapshot is unchanged') is efficient but slightly cryptic and would read better attached to a clause.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema write tool whose annotations already cover safety, the behavioral side effects are well covered; the only real gap is that nothing tells the agent what 'content' should contain.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter 'content' (1–32000 chars) is never described — no indication of accepted format (plain text, markdown, etc.) or how it is interpreted, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new note') and adds the execution context ('in the live Antinote app using its URL scheme'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like append_to_current_note and open_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 by the side-effect warnings ('May open the app', 'Dispatch does not confirm saving'), so an agent can infer this is a fire-and-forget creation path, but no sibling is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance is given.

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