List all tools and their input parameter schemas exposed via the Youdao Note MCP server, enabling users to identify available actions for managing notes, todos, search, and clipping.
列出有道云笔记上游 MCP 实际暴露的所有工具及其入参 schema。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys that the tool queries the actual upstream MCP state ('实际暴露的'), implying a live enumeration rather than a static list, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential network/upstream dependency, failure behavior, or whether the list reflects already-refreshed tools versus triggering a fresh query.
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, complete sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the parenthetical-free structure is easy to parse quickly.
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 zero-parameter discovery tool, the description adequately covers the return content (tool names and input schemas). There is no output schema, but the description states what the tool returns. Minor omissions like output format or behavior when the upstream is unreachable are acceptable given the low complexity.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about inputs; the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of '入参 schema' refers to the return payload, not to this tool's own parameters, so it doesn't add or need parameter-level semantics.
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 states a specific action ('列出') and resource ('上游 MCP 实际暴露的所有工具及其入参 schema'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It differentiates from siblings only implicitly — listing tools is naturally distinct from checking status (yn_status) or refreshing the tool list (yn_refresh_tools) — but it doesn't explicitly name them.
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 guidance is provided on when to call this tool, when not to, or how it relates to the sibling tools yn_status and yn_refresh_tools. An agent must infer that this is a discovery/introspection tool from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.