Create a new note or Markdown document in Keep It. Provide content, title, tags, bundle, folder, and format to save and organize it.
Create a new Note or Markdown document in Keep It.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Title / display name for the note | |
| tags | No | Tags to apply to the new note | |
| text | Yes | The content of the note | |
| bundle | No | Target bundle name | |
| folder | No | Target folder name | |
| format | No | Format of note to create | markdown |
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 behavioral burden, and it says nothing about side effects, permissions, duplicate-name behavior, or what happens when bundle/folder are omitted. For a mutating creation tool with six parameters, a bare 'creates' statement leaves significant gaps.
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 short sentence is efficient and front-loaded with the verb, but for a six-parameter creation tool with no annotations it is arguably undersized rather than truly concise. Nothing is wasted, but little is conveyed.
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?
With six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain default placement (bundle/folder are optional), tag handling, or the format options. Instead it provides only a restatement of the tool's name, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema.
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%, with every parameter documented in the schema (including the format enum and its markdown default), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond naming the resource being created, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is complete.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: creating a Note or Markdown document in Keep It. It is understandable on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like keepit_append_to_note or keepit_import_file, which an agent may conflate when deciding how to add content.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Nothing tells the agent whether to use this versus keepit_append_to_note for adding content to an existing note, or keepit_import_file for external files.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.