List vault notes with optional filters for note type and campaign. Get a structured list of note paths, names, and types for easy reference.
列出 vault 笔记（可按 note_type / campaign 过滤），返回 {notes:[{path,name,type}]}。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign | No | ||
| note_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the return shape ({notes:[{path,name,type}]}) and mentions filtering, which is useful. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only or address side effects, sorting, or pagination. 'List' implies no mutation, so this is adequate but not thorough.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action, then the filters, then the return format. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant or vague wording.
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 simple list tool with two optional filters, the description covers the essentials: what it lists, how to filter, and what it returns. It omits optional details like ordering and pagination, but these are not critical for the tool's basic usage.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It names both parameters (note_type, campaign) and indicates they are filters, adding meaning beyond the bare property names. However, it does not specify value formats, matching semantics, or constraints, so compensation is partial.
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 uses the specific verb '列出' (list) with a clear resource, 'vault 笔记', and names the optional filters (note_type / campaign). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_note, read_note, and semantic_search.
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 description provides clear context: it lists notes and supports filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when to use an alternative such as read_note or semantic_search, though the 'list' action is self-explanatory enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.