ainote

judgment_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the authenticated user's own judgments (L3 layer) — use this to check your own blocking status (risk_tier 1 pending = execution blocked). Default order matches the /command queue: risk_tier ascending, then arrival order.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	No	Filter by kind.
`limit`	No	Max rows to return (default 50, max 200).
`decision`	No	Filter by decision. Omit for all.
`risk_tier`	No	Filter by risk_tier.
`project_id`	No	Filter by project UUID.
`subject_id`	No	Filter by subject UUID (pair with subject_type).
`subject_type`	No	Filter by subject type.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 12, 2026
- addedInput schema / $schema
```
Added value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
```
AddedAug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations, such as the default ordering (risk_tier ascending, then arrival order) and the semantic interpretation of risk_tier 1 pending. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences, tightly worded, and front-loads the primary purpose. Every clause adds value, including the L3 layer qualifier and the ordering note.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and 7 optional parameters, the description sufficiently covers the tool's scope, use case, and ordering. It does not explain the return shape, but the schema covers filters, and the safety profile is fully handled by annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already described structurally. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific detail, though it mentions the overall default order which is related to behavior rather than parameters.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('judgments') with a clear scope ('the authenticated user's own judgments, L3 layer'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling judgment_submit by being the read-only listing counterpart.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use this to check your own blocking status' and explains the significance of 'risk_tier 1 pending = execution blocked'. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ainote tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools clearly target distinct resources (tasks, docs, graph, sync, env_sync, handoffs, judgments, projects, vault). A few pairs could confuse, like sync_push vs vault_sync (which has a push action) and env_sync_write vs env_sync_txn_push, but descriptions mostly clarify boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are predominantly snake_case with a noun_verb pattern (e.g., sync_push, task_write), but there are notable inconsistencies: plural/singular mismatches (dev_docs_read vs dev_doc_write, tasks_read vs task_write), verb-first names (list_papers, get_setup_guide, judgment_submit), and a dotted sub-namespace (env_sync.secret_pull) mixed with flat names (env_sync_txn_push).

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is a large surface for a personal note/sync server. While it spans many domains (auth, tasks, docs, sync, env_sync, graph, etc.), the sheer number feels heavy and likely overwhelms agents with too many choices, especially when several tools are consolidated sub-action surfaces.

Completeness3/5

Most domains have reasonable CRUD coverage (tasks, dev docs, graph, sync, env_sync, vault). However, noticeable gaps exist: memory has no write tool (only read), papers only support listing (no create/update/delete), assumptions have write but no dedicated read or delete, and judgment is effectively submit-and-list only.

Resources

Need Help?