Knowledge Assistant MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it creates notes with frontmatter, enforces naming conventions, and performs duplicate checks before creation. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., file system changes), error handling, or response format, which would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core action ('Create a new note') followed by important constraints. Both sentences add value: the first covers creation and conventions, the second adds duplicate checking. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating behavioral aspects).

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides good context: it explains the creation purpose, naming rules, and duplicate checking. However, it lacks details on error conditions, response format, or how the 'type' parameter maps to the naming conventions, leaving some gaps for the agent to infer.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema—it mentions naming conventions that relate to the 'title' parameter and note types, but doesn't explain how parameters like 'folder' or 'related' interact with the creation process. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

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 specific action ('Create a new note'), the target resource ('Knowledge vault'), and key behavioral aspects ('with proper frontmatter and naming conventions', 'Checks for duplicates before creation'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like knowledge_read, knowledge_search, and knowledge_stats by focusing on creation rather than retrieval or analysis.

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 context through naming conventions (e.g., 'C_' for concepts, date-based prefixes for conversations/troubleshooting), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like knowledge_write versus knowledge_read or knowledge_search. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the naming rules.

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