Save a new note with a title and body to your SQLite knowledge base, then return the stored note for confirmation.
Create a new note with a title and body, and return the saved note.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| title | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| created_at | Yes | ||
| updated_at | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 mostly doesn't. It discloses only that the saved note is returned; nothing about auth/permissions, failure modes, or that this is a persistent mutation. That's thin for a write tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 padding. The clause about returning the saved note is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but overall it is tight and well-ordered.
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?
The tool is simple (2 required string params) and an output schema covers the return value, so the bar is low. Still, for a mutation with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description leaves behavioral essentials (permissions, error behavior, whether the note persists) unaddressed.
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%, so the description should compensate, but it only echoes the parameter names (title, body) without adding meaning. Length limits, constraints, and any format expectations remain unstated in prose even though the schema encodes min/max lengths.
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 (Create) and resource (note) plus the required inputs and that the result is returned. The action is unambiguously distinct from get_note/update_note/delete_note, though the description never names or contrasts those siblings.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. With update_note as a sibling, the agent gets no explicit signal that this tool is for brand-new notes rather than modifying existing ones; usage is only inferable from the name and verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.