NoteDiscovery MCP Server

list_notes

Browse a note vault by listing notes with titles, paths, modified dates, and sizes; filter by folder or paginate to review large collections.

Instructions

List notes in the knowledge base with their metadata (title, path, last modified date, size). Use this to get an overview of available notes or find notes by browsing. Use folder to list only part of the vault.

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_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of notes to return. Useful for large vaults. If not specified, returns all notes.
`folder`	No	Only include notes under this folder (e.g., 'projects/2024').
`offset`	No	Number of notes to skip. Use with limit for pagination.
`recursive`	No	With folder, also include subfolders. Defaults to true.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.34.1Nov 13, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / folder

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Only include notes under this folder (e.g., 'projects/2024').",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / recursive

Added value: +{
+  "description": "With folder, also include subfolders. Defaults to true.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the metadata enumeration usefully signals that note bodies are not returned, which is real added value. It says nothing about permissions, cost on large vaults beyond a passing mention of limit, or what happens with deeply nested folders.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its output shape before usage guidance. The browsing clause is mildly redundant with the opening sentence but still earns its place as routing guidance.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing the fields returned. With zero required parameters and full schema coverage, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only pagination behavior across large vaults is left to inference.

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 all four parameters (limit, folder, offset, recursive) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces folder scoping but adds no syntax or format detail, and never mentions offset or recursive. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list notes in the knowledge base) and goes further by enumerating the metadata returned (title, path, last modified date, size). It does not name or contrast itself with the closest siblings, search_notes and get_recent_notes, so the agent must infer the browsing-vs-search distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear positive guidance: use it for an overview of available notes or to find notes by browsing, and use the folder parameter to scope to part of the vault. 'By browsing' implicitly contrasts with search, but no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not-to-use condition is stated.

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