list_notebooksRetrieve all notebooks in your SiYuan workspace with their IDs, names, and open states. Use this first to find the notebook ID required by other tools.
List every notebook (思源笔记本) in the workspace with its ID, name and open state. Call this first when you need a notebook ID for other tools.
| 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses that the result is exhaustive ('every notebook') and names the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention pagination or sorting behavior, which is the remaining gap.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler. The scope and returned fields are front-loaded and the usage instruction follows immediately; every clause 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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only listing with no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields and stating the workspace-wide scope. Only the absence of any note on result size or ordering keeps it from being fully complete.
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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming that the listing is unfiltered and workspace-wide.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('List every notebook') and even enumerates the returned fields (ID, name, open state), with a parenthetical gloss of the domain term (思源笔记本). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling list_documents, so it stops short of a 5.
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 second sentence gives explicit when-to-use guidance and an ordering hint: 'Call this first when you need a notebook ID for other tools.' No alternatives exist among siblings for this resource and no exclusions are stated, so it is clear context without full when/when-not coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.