list_recent_notesRetrieve recently created or updated notes from Alt to find the note for a recording in progress; the first item typically shows the active note.
Alt(실시간 전사 도구)에 최근 생성/수정된 노트 목록을 반환합니다. 지금 녹음 중인 강의를 찾을 때 가장 먼저 호출하세요 — 보통 목록의 맨 앞이 현재 진행 중인 노트입니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It adds useful traits beyond the name: results are ordered by recency and the first item typically corresponds to the in-progress note. It does not mention edge cases such as empty lists, but for a zero-parameter read-only listing this is acceptable.
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: the first states the core return value, and the second gives actionable guidance. No filler, no repetition of the tool name or schema, and the most important usage hint is front-loaded.
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 zero-parameter list tool without an output schema, the description covers what is returned, the ordering heuristic, and when to call it. The only minor omission is an explicit note about empty results, which is not critical for this kind of listing.
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?
The input schema has no parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description correctly focuses on result semantics rather than parameter details because there are none to document.
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 ('returns a list'), resource ('recently created/modified notes'), and tool context (Alt real-time transcription). It clearly describes what the tool does, and the 'recent' scope distinguishes it from search_notes, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 gives a concrete trigger: call this first when looking for a lecture currently being recorded, and notes that the front item is usually the active note. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative filtering tools, so it misses full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.