List notes within your organization to review accessible records. Identify object-level authorization gaps by comparing returned notes against expected access.
List the notes in your organization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.10.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only states the scope ('in your organization') and the read-style verb 'List'. It does not mention whether this is read-only, what is returned, pagination/ordering, authorization requirements, or the meaning/role of the token.
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 clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though not fully adequate for the missing parameter and usage semantics.
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?
Without annotations, output schema, or parameter descriptions, the description alone is too thin for safe invocation. It covers the basic purpose but lacks token semantics, return shape, pagination, and when-to-use context, making it incomplete against the rich sibling toolset.
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%, and the only required parameter, token, is a bare string. The description never mentions token, so the agent cannot know whether it is an auth token, a pagination token, or an organization token. The description must compensate for the missing parameter documentation and does not.
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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('notes in your organization'), making the tool's core purpose clear. It differentiates from note_get/note_create but does not explicitly separate list from the similarly broad note_search or note_get_by_query.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use note_list instead of note_search, note_get_by_query, or note_export. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.