USERDATA

add_note

Save a research note with an optional ticker and project ID to persist insights in a durable store for later reference.

Instructions

Writes a note; ticker may be empty.

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": {
      "note_text": "<note_text>",
      "ticker": "<ticker>"
    },
    "name": "add_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ticker`	Yes
`note_text`	Yes
`project_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it does not say where the note is stored, whether it is attached to a project/ticker permanently, whether it is mutable, or what permissions are needed. Only the persistence-free hint that ticker may be empty is disclosed, and it slightly conflicts with the schema marking ticker as required.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is as short as possible and front-loads the verb, so there is no waste. However, the brevity comes at the cost of substance, and the one clause present sits in tense ambiguity with the required ticker field.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but for a three-parameter write tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the definition is far too thin. Nothing explains project_id's role or the effect of adding a note relative to the surrounding project/session tools.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies that ticker can be an empty string; note_text and the nullable project_id (what it scopes the note to, and behavior when null) are entirely undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Writes a note" gives a verb and resource, so the basic operation is inferrable, but it is not distinguished from sibling logging/annotation tools such as log, tag, or define_concept, and no scope or target is stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only usage-adjacent information is "ticker may be empty," which is a constraint rather than a selection rule, leaving the agent to guess when add_note beats log or tag.

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