JobNimbus MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

jn_list_notes

Retrieve user-written notes, excluding system status changes, for a specific contact or job in JobNimbus. Filter results by related entity ID.

Instructions

List user-written notes on a contact or job. Excludes system-generated status change notes.

Tool call template

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": "jn_list_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`from`	No
`size`	No
`related_jnid`	No	Filter by related contact or job jnid

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only adds that system-generated notes are excluded, but lacks disclosure on pagination behavior, permission requirements, or any side effects. For a read operation, more transparency is expected.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description should clarify the return format or pagination behavior, but it does not. It also does not explain the filtering semantics beyond 'user-written' and 'contact or job', leaving significant gaps for an agent to use correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33% (only 'related_jnid' has a description). The tool description does not explain the 'from' and 'size' parameters or their defaults, nor does it add meaning beyond the vague 'Filter by related contact or job jnid'. It fails to compensate for low schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'user-written notes', and the scope 'on a contact or job'. It also distinguishes from system-generated notes, which is a sibling differentiation from tools like jn_list_activities that might include system notes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for retrieving user notes on contacts/jobs but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jn_list_activities or jn_list_tasks, nor any exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.