List the keys in a note namespace, alphabetically. Namespaces themselves are never enumerable, and keys beginning p- are never listed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many keys, clamped to 1-200, default 50. | |
| namespace | Yes | Note namespace. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "How many keys, clamped to 1-200, default 50.",
+ "title": "Limit"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses specific behaviors: that namespaces are not enumerable and that keys with the 'p-' prefix are excluded. This adds meaningful detail about the tool's behavior.
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 a single, concise sentence that includes the essential information without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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 simple listing tool, the description covers the key aspects: what is listed, the ordering, and exclusion rules. The limit parameter semantics are already documented in the schema, so no additional context is needed.
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% (both namespace and limit have descriptions). The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('List') and the target ('keys in a note namespace') with an ordering ('alphabetically'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_rooms (which lists rooms) and read_note (which reads a single note).
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 gives implicit guidance by specifying constraints ('Namespaces themselves are never enumerable, and keys beginning `p-` are never listed'), making it clear when this tool is appropriate for enumerating note keys. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the constraints clarify its scope.
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.