Standard Metrics MCP Server

list_notes

Retrieve all notes associated with a company, filtered by slug or ID, with sorting and pagination.

Instructions

List all notes associated with a specific company.

Args: company_slug: Filter by company slug company_id: Filter by company ID sort_by: Sort notes by specific field page: Page number for pagination (default: 1) per_page: Results per page (default: 100, max: 100)

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_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`company_slug`	No
`company_id`	No
`sort_by`	No
`page`	No
`per_page`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJan 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It does not disclose destructive or read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether sorting fields are enumerated. The pagination details are minimal. Lacks key behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, with a clear purpose sentence followed by a structured Args list. Each sentence serves a purpose. However, the Args list is slightly repetitive; could be more streamlined. No unnecessary fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides basic parameter details but lacks guidance on required filters, allowed sort fields, and return format. It covers the essentials for a simple list but feels incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds basic meaning for each parameter (e.g., 'Filter by company slug', 'Sort notes by specific field'). However, 'Sort By' does not specify allowed values, and 'company_slug' vs 'company_id' have no clarity on mutual exclusivity. Adds some value but incomplete.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'List all notes associated with a specific company', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_company_notes_summary' by indicating it returns a list, not a summary.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_company_notes_summary). There is no mention of required context (e.g., company_slug or company_id must be provided) or exclusions. The description implies usage but lacks explicit direction.

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