Retrieve all notes attached to a specific document by ID, with optional pagination for large note collections.
List all notes for a specific document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The document ID | |
| page | No | Page number (1-based) | |
| page_size | No | Number of items per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation. The description adds minimal context by specifying that all notes for one document are returned, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or response contents. No annotation contradiction exists.
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?
A single, direct sentence with zero filler. The verb and target resource are front-loaded, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.
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 read-only list operation with fully documented parameters and a readOnly annotation, the description is sufficient. The absence of an output schema means response shape is not described, but this is acceptable for such a straightforward listing tool.
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 100%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full documentation burden.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'notes', and the scope 'for a specific document'. This differentiates it from create_document_note, delete_document_note, and the broader list_documents sibling.
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 intended use is implied: when notes for a specific document are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, such as filtering or sorting behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.