Locate notes by filename or path using glob patterns or partial name matches, with optional folder and limit filters.
Find notes by NAME or path. */? globs work; a bare word matches any
name containing it.
Use this when you know roughly what a note is called. Use search_notes
when you need to look inside the content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| folder | No | ||
| pattern | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by explaining matching semantics: globs work and bare words match substrings. It doesn't cover folder/limit behavior or ordering, but it clearly communicates the core matching behavior without contradiction.
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 short and front-loaded. It states the core behavior first, then adds matching syntax, then closes with usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place and there is 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?
For a relatively simple 3-parameter finder tool, the description covers the primary usage scenarios and the essential pattern semantics. The main gaps are the behavior of folder and limit, but the tool's scope and decision context are clear enough for correct invocation in most cases.
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 required pattern parameter is well explained with concrete matching rules: '*'/'?' globs and bare-word substring matching. However, the other two parameters, limit and folder, have no description enrichment, and schema description coverage is 0%. Their semantics remain inferred from names and defaults alone.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find notes by NAME or path'. It also distinguishes itself from search_notes by clarifying that this tool searches names/paths, not content. This makes it easily separable from siblings like list_notes, search_by_tag, and search_frontmatter.
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?
It explicitly says when to use this tool: 'when you know roughly what a note is called.' It also names the alternative, search_notes, and the condition for choosing it: 'when you need to look inside the content.' This gives the agent clear decision logic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.