Fetch all notes stored in Apple Notes on your Mac, giving you quick access to review and manage your saved content.
Lists notes from Apple Notes app.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_notes"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.341v3.0.341v3.0.165v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the name. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, whether it returns all notes or only a subset, or any limitations. With no annotations provided, the description should compensate but fails to do so.
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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and is well-structured.
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 the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks details such as whether the list includes all notes or just titles, sorting order, or any limitations. For a simple list tool, it could be considered adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
There are no parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description adds meaning by specifying the app (Apple Notes), which is not evident from the schema. Since schema coverage is trivially 100%, the baseline is 3, but the domain context justifies a 4.
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 clearly states the tool lists notes from the Apple Notes app. It specifies the action (lists) and resource (notes from Apple Notes). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_notes' which also retrieves notes but with filtering.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify that 'list_notes' returns all notes without filtering, while 'search_notes' is for filtering. The description provides no context on prerequisites or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.