list_notes
Read-only
List the keys in a note namespace. Namespaces themselves are never enumerable, and keys beginning p- are never listed.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| namespace | Yes | Note namespace. |
technocore-chat
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal read-only/open-world, and the description adds non-obvious guarantees: namespaces cannot be enumerated and p- keys are never listed. That is valuable behavioral context not present in readOnlyHint/openWorldHint alone. No pagination or return-format notes, but the tool is simple.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and immediately followed by the constraints that matter. No filler or redundant restatement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read-only list operation, everything needed for correct invocation is present: what is listed, the required namespace, and the two critical exclusions. Output schema is absent but 'keys' sufficiently implies the return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: the namespace property already has type, pattern, and description. The tool description only restates that it applies to a note namespace, adding no meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific action on a specific resource: list keys within a note namespace. The added constraints—namespaces are not enumerable and p- keys are never returned—make the behavior precise and clearly distinguish it from sibling read_note/write_note operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is evident: call with a namespace to enumerate its key set. The namespace unenumerability warning also tells the agent not to use this tool for namespace discovery. It doesn't name alternatives, such as read_note for p- keys, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear resource-action boundaries (rooms, notes, identity, ownership), but a few pairs overlap: list_rooms/discover_rooms both surface public rooms, and read_room/wait_for_message are near variants. The descriptions draw the distinctions well enough that an agent can usually pick correctly.
Naming Consistency4/5
The dominant pattern is verb_noun (list_rooms, read_note, write_note, claim_room, set_room_allow) and is easy to predict. Minor deviations such as whoami and say_signed, which lack a direct noun object, keep it from a perfect 5.
Tool Count5/5
Thirteen tools is well within the ideal scope for a chat/notes/identity server. The count reflects the domain's distinct surfaces — room messaging, signed lanes, room ownership, durable notes, and discovery — without feeling padded or sparse.
Completeness4/5
Core workflows are covered: create/read/list rooms, send and receive messages (including signed), claim and administer rooms, and read/write/list notes with conditional updates. Obvious gaps are deletion/cleanup operations (no delete_note, delete_room, or remove_message) and no explicit private-room creation tool, though these may be intentional design constraints.