Search active sticky notes by title or text, filtering by notebook and starred status to find specific notes.
Search active notes by title or plain text, optionally filtering by notebook and starred status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| notebook | No | ||
| starred_only | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits: it searches only 'active' notes (not archived/deleted), searches both title and plain text, and applies optional filters for notebook and starred status. These details go beyond the obvious and help an agent predict execution behavior.
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 17-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, states the search scope, and lists the filters with zero waste. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool has four optional parameters and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the core purpose and the main filters, but leaves minor gaps such as the default behavior of an empty query or the meaning of 'active.' These are not critical for invoking the tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains 'query' (title/plain text), 'notebook' (filtering by notebook), and 'starred_only' (starred status), but it does not mention 'limit' at all. This is partial compensation rather than full coverage.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('active notes'), and clarifies scope ('by title or plain text'). It differentiates from siblings like list_notebooks and get_note, which serve different purposes (listing notebooks and fetching a single note).
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 description clearly conveys what the tool does, so when-to-use is implied (finding notes by text or filters). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_note or list_notebooks, nor does it state conditions for when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.