NoteDiscovery MCP Server

list_folders

Lists folders in the knowledge base, including empty ones, with note and subfolder counts, and can filter by parent or include nested folders.

Instructions

List folders in the knowledge base, including empty ones, with the number of notes and subfolders directly inside each one.

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": "list_folders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`parent`	No	Only list folders under this folder (e.g., 'projects'). If not specified, starts at the vault root.
`recursive`	No	Include all nested folders. Set to false to list only direct children. Defaults to true.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.34.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful behaviors: empty folders are included and per-folder counts are returned. It omits ordering, how counts behave under recursion, and any permission expectations, which leaves real gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause contributes: scope of inclusion (empty folders) and the returned counts. No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it says what is listed and what metadata comes back. Minor gaps remain around ordering and whether the returned counts follow the recursive flag.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with their defaults and semantics. The phrase 'subfolders directly inside each one' loosely reinforces the non-recursive reading but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

A specific verb (List) and resource (folders in the knowledge base), plus an explicit statement of what is returned: empty folders and counts of notes and subfolders directly inside each. The resource noun alone distinguishes it from list_notes, list_tags and list_templates, though no sibling is named for contrast.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource: an agent needing a folder inventory rather than a note or tag listing would pick this. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to the scoping parameters as the alternative to a full recursive walk.

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