list_tree_rootsLists top-level tree nodes with pagination so you can browse root-level notes; use cursor and limit for paging and includeArchived to include archived roots.
List only top-level tree nodes, paginated. Use resolve_tree_nodes for direct lookup or get_tree_overview for a budgeted overview.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| includeArchived | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds 'paginated', which is genuinely extra behavioral context, but it says nothing about archived-node handling or what a page contains. Creditable but thin beyond annotations.
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, front-loaded with the scope constraint, zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing routing information.
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?
No output schema and no annotation gap, but the undocumented default of excluding archived nodes and the return shape of a page are never addressed. Adequate to invoke safely, not complete enough to predict results.
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% across all three parameters, so the description carries the burden and mentions only pagination in passing. It never explains limit (default 50, max 100), cursor semantics, or what includeArchived=false means — the one param with real behavioral consequence.
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?
Specific verb-plus-resource ('List ... top-level tree nodes') with an explicit scope qualifier ('only top-level') that separates it from list_tree_children and get_tree_subtree. The 'tree nodes' resource is slightly abstract given generic naming, but an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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?
Names two alternatives (resolve_tree_nodes for direct lookup, get_tree_overview for a budgeted overview) and gives the condition that selects each. The 'only top-level' scope phrase implicitly excludes the child/subtree traversal siblings, leaving nothing important to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.