Retrieve all notes attached to a document to review audit trails or progress comments.
List all notes attached to a document. Notes are free-text comments on a document and are the natural place for an audit trail (e.g. "invoice paid on X from account Y") or progress notes on an action item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The document ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; "List" does imply a read-only operation, and the description characterizes the returned data as free-text comments. It does not disclose ordering, pagination, or whether an empty result is possible for a document with no notes, leaving some behavioral gaps for a no-annotation 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds domain meaning rather than filler. Slightly more elaboration than strictly necessary for a one-parameter list tool.
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 simple, single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the nature of the returned notes adequately. Remaining gaps (result shape, ordering) are minor given the tool's low complexity.
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?
With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the required "id" as the document ID. The description adds no format, type, or constraint information about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("List all notes attached to a document"), so an agent immediately knows what the tool returns. It stops short of naming sibling note tools (create_document_note, delete_document_note), so the read-vs-write distinction is inferred from the verb rather than stated.
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 second sentence explains what notes are and gives example use cases (audit trail, progress notes on an action item), which implies when reading them is valuable. However, it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_document or query_documents, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.