HackMD MCP Server

Does 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. 'Create a new note' implies a write/mutation operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what happens on success/failure. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary context for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'Create a new note'. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by stating the core action, but it lacks necessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity (a write operation with nested parameters and multiple sibling tools), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return values, error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools like 'create_team_note'. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively in a real scenario.

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 detailed descriptions for all nested parameters (e.g., 'Note content', 'Note title', permission enums). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, but the schema is comprehensive. According to rules, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high (>80%) and no param info is in the description.

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 'Create a new note' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'create_team_note' or explain what type of note is being created (e.g., personal vs. team). The verb 'create' is clear but lacks context about the resource scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_team_note' or 'update_note'. There is no mention of prerequisites, target context (e.g., personal notes vs. team notes), or any explicit when/when-not instructions. This leaves the agent without usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.