list_notesList the notes and subfolders of a folder (default: the whole vault's top level). Use it to browse the structure.
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": "list_notes"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | No | Folder path, e.g. „1_Wissen“. Empty = top level. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
No schema history has been recorded yet.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that subfolders are included and that the default scope is the vault's top level, but says nothing about depth/recursion or pagination for large vaults.
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 with the scope constraint front-loaded. The second sentence ("Use it to browse the structure") adds little beyond the first, but nothing is bloated.
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?
A simple, single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, so less is required. Still, the agent is not told what comes back (note names vs. paths vs. metadata) or whether listing is recursive, which matters for browsing decisions.
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 coverage is 100% and the folder parameter is already documented with an example and "Empty = top level." The description restates the default rather than adding format or edge-case detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 ("List the notes and subfolders") plus scope (per folder, default top level). It is clearly distinct from read_note or search_notes by implication, but never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.
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?
"Use it to browse the structure" gives an implied browsing context, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to search_notes as the alternative for finding content rather than browsing.
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.