List IMA notes with pagination and sorting, optionally filtered by folder; an empty folder_id returns all notes. Use it to browse or enumerate existing notes.
列出 IMA 笔记。folder_id 为空时列出全部笔记。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| folder_id | No | ||
| sort_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only discloses that an empty folder_id means all notes; it says nothing about pagination via limit/cursor, default sort order, permissions, or what the response contains, which are important for a list operation with four parameters.
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 two short sentences with zero waste and is front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every sentence earns its place, though the overall definition remains under-specified in other dimensions.
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?
Given four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin for correct invocation. It omits essential details such as pagination behavior, sort semantics, and return shape, so an agent would have to guess how to use limit, cursor, and sort_type.
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%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It adds meaning only for folder_id (empty means all notes); limit, cursor, and sort_type receive no explanation in either the schema or the description, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.
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: '列出 IMA 笔记' (list IMA notes), and adds scope with 'folder_id 为空时列出全部笔记' (when folder_id is empty, list all notes). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling ima_search_notes, which is the likely alternative for finding notes.
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?
The description implies usage: use it to list notes, optionally scoped by folder_id, and leave folder_id empty to list all notes. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus ima_search_notes, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.