Joplin MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_notebooks

List all notebooks in your Joplin instance with their titles, IDs, paths, and note counts. Use this to review folder structure and quickly assess where notes are organized.

Instructions

List all notebooks/folders in your Joplin instance, with note counts.

Returns each notebook's id, title, path and note_count. Pass verbose=True to also get the emoji icon, parent_id and timestamps -- rarely needed, and on a large collection they roughly double the size of this response.

Returns: str: Formatted list of all notebooks including title, unique ID, path, and note count.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`verbose`	No	Also return icon, parent_id and timestamps (default: False)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.10.0Sep 18, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / verbose

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Also return icon, parent_id and timestamps (default: False)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedv0.8.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape (id, title, path, note_count), optional extra fields, and a notable performance consequence: verbose 'roughly double[s] the size of this response' on large collections. This goes beyond the schema and helps an agent anticipate response costs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-organized and front-loaded: it states the core behavior first, then returned fields, then optional behavior. There is mild redundancy between the opening line and the final 'Returns:' block, but overall every sentence contributes useful information and the length is appropriate.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what the tool returns, what verbose adds, and a performance caveat. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or failure conditions, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema's parameter comment by explaining that verbose is 'rarely needed' and quantifying its effect on response size, giving the agent a practical basis for deciding whether to set it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List all notebooks/folders in your Joplin instance, with note counts.' It also enumerates the exact returned fields, making the tool's function unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like list_tags and get_note.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is implied by the name and description: use this to retrieve all notebooks with counts. Some decision support is provided for the verbose flag ('rarely needed'), but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives or when it would not be appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.