Opens and promotes a note by UUID in Antinote, updating the current note and note order. Use it to navigate to a specific note, though snapshot IDs may refer to deleted notes.
Promote and open a note by UUID in the live app. Changes the current note and note order. May open Antinote. A snapshot ID may refer to a note that no longer exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes beyond the annotations by naming concrete side effects (changes the current note and note order), warning that Antinote may be launched (consistent with openWorldHint), and flagging the stale-snapshot failure mode. Only the return behavior and any error/permission semantics are left unstated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four short, front-loaded sentences with the action stated first and caveats after. Minor slack in 'May open Antinote,' which is blunt but informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter mutation tool whose annotations already declare mutation/open-world/non-idempotent status, the description covers side effects and a failure mode. Missing only what the call returns or how it reports an unknown ID.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate; it says the value is a UUID and adds a caveat about snapshot IDs that may be stale, but it never clarifies whether the `id` parameter is a note UUID or a snapshot ID, leaving the core input ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Promote and open a note by UUID in the live app.' The 'live app' framing implicitly separates it from read_note/list_notes, which operate on stored data, but no sibling is named explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by 'open ... in the live app' and the promotion side effect, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no pointer to read_note or search_notes as alternatives for non-live access.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.