docs_writeWrite a document — a title and a markdown body. Pass an id to replace one you already have. Private unless you set public. For something long enough to re-read; for a short thing to remember, use notes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Existing document id to replace. Omit to create a new one | |
| title | Yes | The document's title | |
| public | No | Readable by anyone when true. Private by default | |
| content | Yes | The document's body, as markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations beyond title, the description carries the burden. It discloses privacy default ('Private unless you set public') and replacement behavior via id. It does not mention authentication, errors, or side effects, but the key behaviors are transparent.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every clause adds value (purpose, replacement, privacy, alternative). No fluff or repetition of schema details.
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 4-parameter schema with full descriptions, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits. It is complete for a write tool, including a clear alternative to notes.
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 coverage is 100% with each parameter fully described. The description repeats what the schema already states (title, markdown body, id for replace, public privacy). It adds no new parameter-level meaning, so 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?
The description clearly states the tool writes a document (title + markdown body) and explicitly distinguishes it from notes for short reminders. The verb 'Write' and resource 'document' are direct and specific, setting it apart from all sibling tools.
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?
It gives explicit guidance: use for long re-readable content, use notes for short things. It also explains the id parameter for replacing existing documents, which clarifies when to use this tool vs creating fresh.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool is prefixed with a clear domain (e.g., apps_, blog_, transit_), and the suffix identifies a distinct action or resource. Overlapping tools like archive_search and news_search are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions.
All tools consistently use a domain_prefix_suffix pattern, but the suffix is sometimes a verb (create, list, search) and sometimes a noun (inbox, status, address). This minor mixing prevents a perfect score but remains predictable and readable.
With 113 tools, the count is far beyond the typical well-scoped range, even for a broad personal assistant. While each tool is distinct and serves a purpose, the sheer number is overwhelming and could be better organized into separate domain-specific servers.
Each domain has near-complete lifecycle coverage, including CRUD and search where relevant, with only minor gaps such as missing apps_delete or events_update. The wide range of covered domains itself demonstrates strong completeness for a general assistant.