list_tree_childrenLists direct child placement nodes with pagination and hasChildren flags, helping you decide whether further expansion of a note tree node is useful.
List direct child placement nodes, paginated. Use hasChildren to decide whether further expansion is useful.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| placementId | Yes | ||
| includeArchived | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already communicate that this is a safe, closed read operation. The description adds that results are paginated and hints at using hasChildren for expansion decisions, but it does not explain pagination mechanics, cursor behavior, or archived-item handling.
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?
The description is two short sentences with the core operation front-loaded. Every sentence contributes either scope or traversal guidance, with no filler.
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?
There is no output schema and no parameter description coverage, so the description should carry more context. It mentions hasChildren as if it is returned, but does not document the return shape, pagination fields, or what includeArchived changes.
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 for four undocumented parameters. It only implies pagination via 'paginated' and hierarchy via 'direct child placement nodes,' leaving placementId, limit, cursor, and includeArchived unexplained.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'List direct child placement nodes.' The word 'direct' helps distinguish it from subtree-oriented siblings such as get_tree_subtree, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state boundaries versus those tools.
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 sentence 'Use hasChildren to decide whether further expansion is useful' provides traversal guidance, but it does not say when to choose this tool over list_tree_roots, get_tree_node, or get_tree_subtree. Usage is implied rather than explicitly scoped.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.