Skip to main content
Glama

cortexpad

by com.cortexpad

append_to_note

Append text to an existing note

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
contentYesNote body. Wrap copyable snippets/commands in a fenced code block (```lang ... ```) to render a one-click copy button. Checklist items MUST be written as "- [ ] text" (unchecked) or "- [x] text" (checked) — the space inside the brackets is required, e.g. "[] text" or "[]text" will NOT render as a checkbox and shows up as plain text instead. Nest an item under the one above it with two leading spaces per level, e.g. " - [ ] sub-item" (one level) or " - [ ] deeper" (two levels) — indentation must be a multiple of two spaces. Section headings are written as "## Heading" (1-3 #'s). Inline `code spans` (single backticks) and **bold** are supported inline within text. Links and other markdown are NOT supported — they render as literal characters, so don't use them.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / content / description
      Previous value: -"Note body. Wrap copyable snippets/commands in a fenced code block (```lang ... ```) to render a one-click copy button. Checklist items MUST be written as \"- [ ] text\" (unchecked) or \"- [x] text\" (checked) — the space inside the brackets is required, e.g. \"[] text\" or \"[]text\" will NOT render as a checkbox and shows up as plain text instead. Section headings are written as \"## Heading\" (1-3 #'s). Inline `code spans` (single backticks) and **bold** are supported inline within text. Links and other markdown are NOT supported — they render as literal characters, so don't use them."New value: +"Note body. Wrap copyable snippets/commands in a fenced code block (```lang ... ```) to render a one-click copy button. Checklist items MUST be written as \"- [ ] text\" (unchecked) or \"- [x] text\" (checked) — the space inside the brackets is required, e.g. \"[] text\" or \"[]text\" will NOT render as a checkbox and shows up as plain text instead. Nest an item under the one above it with two leading spaces per level, e.g. \"  - [ ] sub-item\" (one level) or \"    - [ ] deeper\" (two levels) — indentation must be a multiple of two spaces. Section headings are written as \"## Heading\" (1-3 #'s). Inline `code spans` (single backticks) and **bold** are supported inline within text. Links and other markdown are NOT supported — they render as literal characters, so don't use them."
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states 'append' but does not clarify whether text is added to the end, whether the note must already exist, or what happens on invalid id. No side effects, return behavior, or error handling are mentioned, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, so it is concise and front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail about behavior and usage, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain prerequisites (existing note), the exact append behavior, error conditions, or any formatting expectations beyond what the schema already covers. An agent would need to guess crucial details about how this tool behaves in practice.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description covers the 'content' parameter extensively (formatting rules, checklists, code blocks), but 'id' has no description. The tool description itself adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides for content, and it does not compensate for the undocumented 'id' parameter. With schema coverage at 50%, the description should clarify parameter roles but does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Append text') on a resource ('existing note'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_note and update_note. The verb 'append' implies additive behavior, so the purpose is clear even without naming the alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus update_note or create_note. The description does not mention that this is for adding content to an existing note without replacing it, nor any alternatives or exclusions. Agents must infer usage from the tool name and context.

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

All cortexpad toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: note CRUD, checklist operations, label management, changelog entries, settings, and task queries. Descriptions explicitly differentiate between append vs. update, list vs. get, check vs. uncheck, and add vs. remove, so there is no ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_label, get_note, check_item, update_note), with consistent verb choices. Even 'get_my_tasks' and 'uncheck_item' fit the pattern, so the naming is predictable and uniform.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools is well-scoped for a notes application with checklist, label, and changelog features. Each tool covers a distinct operation without redundancy or bloat, and the count sits comfortably within the ideal 3-15 range.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers full CRUD for notes, plus checklist management (add, check, uncheck), label management (add/remove), changelog entries, settings retrieval, and task aggregation. Minor gaps like archive/unarchive and a dedicated label list are workable, so the surface is near-complete for the domain.

Resources