Retrieve all note keys to see what notes are stored.
List all saved note keys.
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": "note_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must handle behavioral disclosure. It states the action (list all keys), but does not mention if this is a read-only operation, if it returns data in any particular format, or if there are any side effects. With no annotations, it carries full burden but is minimal.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource. No wasted words. Perfectly concise for a trivial tool.
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?
Tool is simple (0 params, no output schema), so description is arguably complete. However, no mention of expected output format or behavior when no notes exist. Could clarify that it returns a list of strings. Given simplicity, a 3 is reasonable.
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 has zero parameters and 100% coverage (no need for additional param info). The description does not add any parameter meaning, but since schema is empty, baseline is 4. It correctly provides context about what is listed (keys), which is useful.
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?
Description clearly states the tool lists all saved note keys. It is specific about the resource (note keys) and the action (list). Sibling tools include note_set, note_get, note_delete, so it is distinct from others.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies it is for listing all keys, but does not clarify that this returns only keys, not values, or that it is a simple enumeration. No alternative tool suggested (e.g., note_get for retrieving a value).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.