Store a new note with a unique ID, title, and content into server memory, making it retrievable for later use.
Stores a new note in server memory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Unique identifier/slug for the note (e.g. 'project-ideas') | |
| title | Yes | Title of the note | |
| content | Yes | Body content of the note |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that this is a mutating operation and names the storage location as "server memory," but it does not state whether an existing note with the same ID is overwritten, whether storage is persistent, what errors may occur, or what the tool returns.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It states the essential action and object efficiently while leaving detailed parameter semantics to the schema.
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 three-parameter create action with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, there is no output schema, no mention of return values or confirmation, and no disclosure about duplicate-ID behavior, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's side effects and response.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond "new note," but the schema already documents id, title, and content adequately. The description does not clarify the uniqueness constraint on id or how the fields relate to the stored note.
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 clear action and resource: "Stores a new note in server memory." The word "Stores" plus "new note" distinguishes it from the read-only sibling list_notes, so an agent can identify it as the create operation without inspecting the schema.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are mentioned. However, the phrase "stores a new note" implies the intended use case, and the only directly related sibling is list_notes, so the usage is reasonably inferable. It lacks clear exclusions such as behavior for duplicate IDs or how it differs from updating a note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.