list_recent_literature_notesList the user's most recently created literature notes. Not for counting: it returns at most 50 literature notes, so it cannot tell how many the user has.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of notes to return (default 10, max 50) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / items / items / properties / collection_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Id of the collection (the book, article or podcast) the note was taken on",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Output schema / properties / items / items / properties / media_idRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Id of the book, article or podcast the note was taken on",
- "type": "integer"
-}Output schema / properties / items / items / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "excerpt",
- "media_id",
- "created_at"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "excerpt",
+ "collection_id",
+ "created_at"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description only needs to add behavior beyond that. It does add real value by disclosing the 50-note cap and the resulting inability to count, which is the kind of truncation detail the annotations do not cover. Pagination beyond the cap is not addressed, keeping it from a 5.
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, zero padding, with the capability first and the exclusion second. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
With an output schema present, return shape need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only has to convey scope and limits, which it does. A brief note on what happens past the 50-note cap 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 single 'limit' parameter is fully documented with its default and max in the schema. The description mentions the 50 ceiling but adds no format or interaction detail beyond what the schema already states, so the 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 names a specific verb and resource ('List the user's most recently created literature notes') and implicitly conveys ordering by recency. It differentiates against the count_* siblings but says nothing about how it differs from search_literature_notes, the other plausible alternative.
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 an explicit when-not ('Not for counting') plus the reason (returns at most 50), which directly routes the agent to count_literature_notes. It stops short of naming search_literature_notes as the alternative when the user wants a filtered or exhaustive lookup.
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.