Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
friends-mcp

friends-mcp

by ourostack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

save_note

Save a friend's name, tool preference, or general note. Overwrite existing data by setting override to 'true'.

Instructions

Save a friend's name, a tool preference, or a general note. Use override='true' to overwrite an existing value.

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": {
      "friendId": "<friendId>",
      "type": "<type>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "save_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
friendIdYesfriend uuid or name
typeYeswhat to save
keyNokey for tool_preference or note
contentYesthe value to save
overrideNoset to 'true' to overwrite an existing value
provenanceNooptional attribution { assertedBy: { agentId, agentName } }

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the overwrite behavior via override parameter but does not explain error cases, permissions, or what happens if override is false (likely creates new). For a mutation tool, more transparency is needed.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose and a usage hint. No fluff; every word earns its place.

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?

With 6 parameters (including nested objects), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks explanation of parameter interdependencies, return values, and behavioral semantics like what constitutes an 'existing value'.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds overall purpose but no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. It does not clarify conditional parameter relationships (e.g., when key is needed).

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'save' and the resource types: 'a friend's name, a tool preference, or a general note'. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like 'link_identity' or 'set_trust'.

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?

The description implies when to use (to save various types of data) but provides no guidance on when not to use or alternatives among the 13 siblings. The hint about override='true' is useful but limited.

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