Capture quick notes, voice-to-text, or clipboard snippets into TextView to retain fragmented information as persistent memory.
保存一条碎片记录到 TextView 记录区。适用于快速笔记、语音转文字、剪贴板内容等碎片化信息。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | No | 来源标识: mcp / xiaozhi / cli / api（默认 mcp） | |
| content | Yes | 记录内容（纯文本） | |
| source_name | No | 来源设备名称，如 "小智音箱"、"录音笔" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It identifies the destination area (TextView 记录区) and the kind of content, but does not disclose mutation side effects, persistence semantics, permissions, return values, or whether saves append or overwrite.
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?
Two sentences: the first states the core action and destination, and the second supplies concise usage examples. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted text.
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 low-complexity tool with three fully described parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. It does not add behavioral details for this mutation tool, but the rich schema carries the parameter burden.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters, including the source enum-like values and default. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb (保存/save) and resource (碎片记录/fragment record) directed at a named storage area (TextView 记录区). It distinguishes the tool from a general document save by emphasizing fragmented information, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling save_document.
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?
It gives clear usage scenarios: quick notes, speech-to-text, and clipboard content, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not provide exclusions or explicitly name save_document as the alternative for non-fragmented content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.