Create a new note by specifying a title and body content. Save personal notes as Markdown files for later listing, searching, or updating.
Create a new note.
Args:
title: A short name for the note, e.g. "Groceries".
content: The body text of the note.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| content | Yes |
| 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 carries the behavioral transparency burden. It states the core mutating behavior (create), but it does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, requires any permissions, or how existing notes might be affected. The described behavior is minimal beyond the basic create action.
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 short, starts with the primary purpose, and then lists parameters with concise explanations. Every sentence contributes information, no filler or repetition, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.
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 simple creation tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the action and defines both parameters. With an output schema present, return value explanation is unnecessary. Minor gaps like storage behavior or prerequisites do not seem blocked for this basic tool.
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 0% description coverage, so the description's argument explanations are essential. It adds meaning by defining title as a short name with an example ('Groceries') and content as the body text, which a schema that only lists string types does not convey. This is useful contextual meaning.
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 'Create a new note' states a specific verb (create) and resource (note) with the qualifier 'new', making it clear this tool adds a note rather than modifies or retrieves one. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_note, read_note, and delete_note.
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 implies usage when a new note is needed but provides no explicit when-to-use/alternatives guidance. There is no mention of when to prefer this over update_note or other siblings, leaving inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.