Lists IMA notebooks with pagination controls, returning results by limit and cursor so you can browse or select a notebook for further note and knowledge base operations.
列出 IMA 笔记本。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | 0 | |
| version | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only restates the purpose. It says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, permissions, or whether results are truncated by limit, all of which matter for a paginated list tool.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy. The one line does not earn its place as a complete definition.
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 three-parameter paginated list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine how to page through results or what version controls.
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 description offers no explanation of limit, cursor, or version. The cursor's string-typed default of "0" and the meaning of version are completely undocumented anywhere.
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 names a specific verb and resource (list IMA notebooks), which is enough for an agent to know what it does. It does not distinguish itself from sibling list/search tools (ima_list_notes, ima_search_notes, ima_list_knowledge), so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling listing/search tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.