Lista resúmenes de notas. Sin folderId devuelve todas; con folderId lista las de esa carpeta (null = raíz).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "notes_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folderId | No | ID de carpeta; null = raíz; omitir = todas |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral nuance — the three-way folderId semantics and that results are note summaries — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or volume of results.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the only real decision point. Nothing is wasted.
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?
For a single optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the one nuance that matters and signals the return type via "resúmenes". A note on pagination or result limits would make it fully complete.
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% and the folderId description already encodes the same null/omit semantics, so the description largely restates the schema. It confirms rather than extends parameter meaning, which is the baseline 3 case.
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 and resource ("Lista resúmenes de notas") and clarifies the scope of the listing. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like notes_search or notes_recent, 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?
Explains the folderId branching behavior (omit = all, null = root, id = that folder), which is genuine usage context, but offers no guidance on when to pick this tool over alternatives such as notes_search.
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.