List notes, newest first, one line each: "title | folder | modified date | pinned". Returns 50 by default. To find notes by content, use search_notes instead.
List notes, newest first, one line each: "title | folder | modified date | pinned". Returns 50 by default. To find notes by content, use search_notes instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max number of notes to return (default 50) | |
| folder | No | Filter by folder name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1v1.2.5v1.3.1v1.2.3v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: notes come newest-first, the default return size is 50, and each row is a fixed pipe-delimited line. It stops short of covering pagination beyond the default or confirming read-only semantics, but ordering, cardinality, and output format are the traits an agent actually needs here.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output format, then the alternative. No filler and every clause is load-bearing.
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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema, describing the line format, ordering, and default count covers the essential gaps the schema leaves open. The only omissions are pagination/truncation behavior beyond the default 50 and an explicit statement that this is a read-only operation.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (limit, folder) are already fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the default of 50 and implies folder scoping but adds no syntax, matching rules, or edge cases beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List notes') plus the exact output shape: 'title | folder | modified date | pinned'. It explicitly names search_notes as the tool for a different use case, so an agent can separate it from its siblings without opening any 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?
Gives an explicit routing rule: use this tool to enumerate notes, and use search_notes instead when the goal is finding notes by content. That is a clear when/when-not split against a named sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.