Locate OneNote pages by title (case-insensitive contains) within permitted sections; since page text search is unavailable, use bloco to narrow results when many sections exist.
Procura páginas pelo TÍTULO (contém, sem diferenciar maiúsculas), só nas seções permitidas.
O OneNote não permite busca no texto das páginas. Mais de 20 seções: restrinja com bloco.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bloco | No | ||
| texto | Yes | ||
| limite | No |
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 full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: substring matching, case-insensitivity, title-only scope, and the OneNote limitation that page text cannot be searched. It does not disclose pagination or ordering behavior of results.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and then the constraints. Every sentence adds information; no filler or restatement of the tool name.
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 read-only search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the essential scoping rules are covered, but return shape and result limiting are left unstated. Adequate rather than complete.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly documents `texto` (the search term) and explains the purpose of `bloco` with a concrete trigger condition, but `limite` (default 20) is never mentioned despite being the result-capping control.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Procura páginas') and narrows the match to the TITLE with contains/case-insensitive semantics, which cleanly separates it from listar_paginas. It never names the sibling it is not, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.
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?
Gives concrete operating context: only allowed sections are searched, and when more than 20 sections exist the caller should restrict with `bloco`. That is a real when-to-use condition. It does not contrast with listar_paginas or ler_pagina for the case where the caller already knows the section.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.