record_ideaCapture a feature or improvement idea in Progressor's shared markdown record for later, instead of doing it now, so current work stays focused.
Park a feature or improvement that came up but is not needed now, instead of doing it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| title | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does 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 implies a write/capture action but says nothing about persistence, where the idea goes, whether it is surfaced later, or whether duplicates are allowed. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and its intent are stated immediately and nothing is repeated.
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 two-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose adequately, but with no annotations and no parameter documentation it leaves behavior and field usage unspecified. Minimum viable, with clear gaps.
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 0% and neither parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning for 'title' vs 'note' (required vs optional, what each should contain), so the agent gets no help on how to populate the two 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 gives a specific verb ('Park') and resource ('a feature or improvement') and clarifies the deferred-intent semantics with 'is not needed now, instead of doing it'. It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it never names the obvious counterpart promote_idea, so sibling routing is left to inference.
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?
'came up but is not needed now, instead of doing it' implies the trigger condition (capture work you are choosing not to do yet). However, it names no alternative tools (e.g. add_tasks, add_goal, promote_idea) and states no exclusions, so the agent must infer when this is preferred over simply creating a task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.