Skip to main content
Glama
EQIQs

@eqiqs/mcp-server

Official
by EQIQs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

List notes

list_notes
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a person's saved notes and check-ins, newest first, to prepare for 1:1 meetings. Read-only access helps you quickly review past interactions before meeting.

Instructions

Read the user's saved notes and check-ins on one person, newest first. Use before a 1:1 or with prep_meeting. Read-only; costs 1 unit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum rows to return (1-100, default 20).
personYesWhose notes to read. Accepts a profile id, an exact email, or a full name. If a name matches more than one person the tool asks which one instead of guessing.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / default
      Added value: +20
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Maximum rows to return (1-100, default 20)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / maximum
      Added value: +100
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / minimum
      Added value: +1
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
    • addedInput schema / properties / person / description
      Added value: +"Whose notes to read. Accepts a profile id, an exact email, or a full name. If a name matches more than one person the tool asks which one instead of guessing."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral details: 'Read-only; costs 1 unit' and 'newest first' ordering. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides additional context beyond them.

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 with no filler. The purpose and usage are front-loaded, and the read-only/cost note is appended cleanly. Every word earns its place.

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 the simple nature of the tool, full schema coverage, and comprehensive annotations, the description is nearly complete. It lacks an explicit mention of return format, but since there is no output schema, a hint would be nice; however, the purpose and usage are clear enough for an agent to call it correctly without ambiguity.

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 both parameters (person and limit) are fully documented in the schema. The description itself does not add further meaning to the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden, and the description doesn't need to repeat it.

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 clearly states the verb 'Read', the resource 'user's saved notes and check-ins', the scope 'on one person', and the ordering 'newest first'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_invites and list_relationships, which have different scopes.

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 description gives explicit usage context: 'Use before a 1:1 or with prep_meeting.' It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the usage scenario is clear and actionable. The context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools