Lists OneNote notebooks in the allowed list, showing each notebook's name, sharing status, and account role. Use it to see which notebooks are permitted for MCP access.
Blocos de anotações do OneNote que estão na lista permitida (nome, se é compartilhado, papel da conta).
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: results are restricted to a permission/allow list rather than all notebooks the account can see. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, auth requirements, or whether unreachable notebooks are silently omitted.
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 compact sentence with no padding, and the resource plus scope are front-loaded. It is slightly under-specified rather than over-long, but nothing is wasted.
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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the allow-list restriction, which is the essential minimum. It still lacks the when-to-use routing against three closely related list/search siblings that an agent would need to select correctly.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description partly compensates by naming the returned fields (name, shared status, account role), which is useful in the absence of an output schema.
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 resource (OneNote notebooks/blocos de anotações) and a scope qualifier (those in the allowed list). It is distinguishable from siblings like listar_secoes and listar_paginas by resource type, though the listing verb itself is only implied by the tool name rather than stated in the text.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus listar_secoes, listar_paginas, or buscar_paginas. The 'allowed list' phrase hints at a filtering context but never states a triggering condition or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.