warp-mcp

List port-in notes

port_list_notes

Read-onlyIdempotent

List notes for a port request, showing internal notes to operators and customer-visible notes to customers. Provide the port request UUID to get the appropriate notes.

Instructions

List the port request's notes. Operators also see internal notes; customers see only customer-visibility notes. Add notes with port_add_note. Errors: NOT_FOUND, INTERNAL_ERROR.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "port_list_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Port request UUID (from port_list_requests or port_create_request)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds role-based access details (operator vs. customer) and lists possible errors (NOT_FOUND, INTERNAL_ERROR), providing useful behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three short sentences, each adding value: purpose with role distinction, alternative tool, and error cases. It is front-loaded and efficient with no wasted words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the simple tool (one required parameter, no output schema, safe read), the description covers purpose, access control, complementary tool, and error scenarios. It is fully complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The input schema describes the 'id' parameter as 'Port request UUID (from port_list_requests or port_create_request)' with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses 'List the port request's notes' with a specific verb and resource. It further differentiates between operator and customer visibility, making the purpose clear and distinct from siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clarifies that operators see internal notes while customers see only customer-visibility notes, indicating when each user type should use this tool. It also mentions using port_add_note to add notes, showing complementary context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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

Deploy Server