List Apple Notes metadata, not note bodies, with optional folder filtering and pagination. Use it to browse note titles, dates, and IDs without loading full content.
Read-only: list note metadata without reading note bodies, optionally within a folder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| folderId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one added fact is that only metadata is returned, which is useful, but it says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters.
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 front-loaded sentence with the read-only nature and the metadata scope stated first, and no filler. Every clause earns its place.
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 list tool with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate in spirit, but with no output schema, zero param descriptions, and no mention of pagination defaults it leaves the agent guessing how to page through results.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It only accounts for folderId ('optionally within a folder') and leaves limit and offset — the pagination controls — completely unexplained in both schema and description.
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 (list) and resource (note metadata) with an explicit scope qualifier. The phrase 'without reading note bodies' distinguishes it from apple_notes_get, though it does not differentiate itself from apple_notes_search.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'optionally within a folder' hints at the folder-scoped case, and 'without reading note bodies' hints that reading content requires a different tool. No alternative is named and no when-not condition is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.