List or search the current user's notes only. Search matches title or content, case-insensitive substring. Defaults to unarchived notes, newest/pinned first. Use this to find a note's ID before calling get_note, update_note, or the checklist/label tools, which all require one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| query | No | Optional search query | |
| archived | No | Include archived notes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description conveys key behaviors: it returns only the current user's notes, performs case-insensitive substring matching on title/content, defaults to unarchived notes, and orders by newest/pinned first. It does not mention pagination or response shape, but for a read-only list tool this is solid transparency.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then compressed search semantics and a clear usage directive. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.
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?
Without an output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage context well. It could clarify what fields are returned (e.g., full objects vs. just IDs), but it explicitly frames the tool as an ID-finder, which is sufficient for its intended workflow.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'query' matches title or content case-insensitively and that the default is unarchived notes, which clarifies the 'archived' parameter's default behavior. This enriches parameter understanding.
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 opens with 'List or search the current user's notes only,' clearly specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating its use case: finding a note ID before calling get_note, update_note, or checklist/label 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?
The description explicitly says 'Use this to find a note's ID before calling get_note, update_note, or the checklist/label tools, which all require one.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternatives, satisfying the highest bar for usage guidelines.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.