Create a short Yuque note or memo from plain text or Markdown, returning its ID, slug, and note URL for later reference.
Create a note (short memo). Returns id, slug, note_url. POST /notes. 详见 references/api/note_api.md
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | Return raw full JSON (default false, returns trimmed fields) | |
| body | Yes | Note body content (required, plain text or Markdown) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the HTTP method (POST /notes) and the returned fields (id, slug, note_url), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. It says nothing about required permissions, rate limits, or side effects, and notably does not explain which namespace/book the note lands in despite the schema having no parent parameter.
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?
Front-loaded with the action, followed by return values and endpoint in a compact sequence. The trailing Chinese reference pointer ('详见 references/api/note_api.md') is compact but assumes a doc file the agent may not resolve, slightly diluting an otherwise efficient sentence.
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 absence of an output schema is partly compensated by naming the returned fields, and 100% schema coverage handles the inputs. However, for a create/mutation tool with zero annotations, the description omits any permission requirements, target container, or effect on existing data, leaving material 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 100%, so the schema already documents both 'body' and 'raw'. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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+resource ('Create a note') and clarifies the resource with '(short memo)', which implicitly separates it from the doc-oriented siblings like yuque_create_doc. It does not explicitly name the alternative, so it falls short of a 5.
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, no exclusions, and no routing between this and yuque_create_doc / yuque_update_note / yuque_list_notes. The agent must infer from the name alone when a note is preferable to a doc.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.