Save a note or memory to the shared session log for persistent context in the bridge, ensuring important information is available across interactions.
Saves a note or memory to the shared bridge session log.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | ||
| note | Yes | ||
| source | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of explaining side effects. It only states that a note is saved, but does not clarify whether the note is appended or overwrites existing ones, whether it persists across sessions, or what the response indicates.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words or detail. It is highly concise and well-structured.
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?
The description gives the core purpose but lacks broader context such as the relationship to 'get_session_notes', whether this is the only way to persist notes, or any expectations about the shared log. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more context would help.
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?
The schema has no descriptions, and the description only mentions 'note' without explaining the meaning or purpose of the 'tag' and 'source' parameters. This leaves the agent guessing about how to properly populate these fields.
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 clearly states the action ('saves') and the object ('a note or memory to the shared bridge session log'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_session_notes'.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_session_notes' or other logging tools. There is no mention of appropriate contexts or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.