Find notes, folders and attachments by name or path part (e.g. a unit folder, a [[wikilink]]).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| workspace | No | Usually omit; else brain id (as in search hits), 'mine', or owner name/email. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / workspace / descriptionPrevious value: -"Brain to act on: its id, «mio» (yours), or the owner's name/email as shown by search. Usually OMIT it: a path that already lives in one brain is found there, for reads and writes alike. Pass it only when the tool tells you to (a NEW branch, or one that exists in several brains) — with the brain the user named; when they were not explicit ASK THEM. A brain where the branch does not exist is refused even if you name it."New value: +"Usually omit; else brain id (as in search hits), 'mine', or owner name/email."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the partial-match semantics (name or path part, wikilinks), but says nothing about exact vs fuzzy matching, multiple-match behavior, or result ordering.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the matching mode and examples land immediately. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, though it could carry one more clause of routing guidance without bloat.
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 two-parameter read-only lookup with rich annotations and no output schema, this covers the essentials and the example values help clarify intent. The main gap is not distinguishing itself from the search siblings when content-based retrieval 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 coverage is 50%: the workspace parameter is documented in the schema, but 'name' is not. The description partially compensates by giving concrete example values ('a unit folder, a [[wikilink]]'), which is useful, but it doesn't explain match rules or the required parameter's format constraints.
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+resource ('Find notes, folders and attachments') and clarifies the matching mode (by name or path part), which distinguishes it from full-text siblings like search/search_mentions. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, so the distinction must be inferred.
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 'by name or path part' phrasing implies the intended use case (locating a known item), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to search/search_mentions for content-based queries.
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.