Open Notebook MCP Server

list_notebooks

Retrieve notebooks with optional filtering by archived status, ordering, and limit results.

Instructions

Get all notebooks with optional filtering and ordering.

Args:
    archived: Filter by archived status (None = all, True = archived only, False = active only)
    order_by: Order by field and direction (e.g., 'created desc', 'name asc')
    limit: Maximum number of results (1-100)

Returns:
    Dictionary with notebooks list and metadata

Tool call template

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_notebooks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`archived`	No
`order_by`	No	updated desc
`limit`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for transparency. It mentions the return type (dictionary with notebooks list and metadata) but omits details like whether it is read-only, pagination behavior, or performance implications. It is adequate but incomplete.

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 concise and well-structured using a standard Args/Returns format. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail the return structure fully. It covers the arguments well and explains the return type. Minor gaps (e.g., no explicit mention of pagination beyond limit) prevent a perfect score, but it is nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does so excellently, providing clear semantics for 'archived' (filtering options), 'order_by' (format with example), and 'limit' (range). This adds significant value beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it retrieves notebooks with optional filtering and ordering (specific verb+resource). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling list tools like list_notes or list_sources, relying on the resource name to imply differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search, get_notebook). It does not mention when-not to use it or any prerequisites. The usage context is implied only by the tool's name.

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