NoteDiscovery MCP Server

move_folder

Move or rename a folder and its notes and subfolders to a new path; fails if the target exists and reports notes whose links break.

Instructions

Move or rename a folder with all its notes and subfolders. Fails if a folder already exists at the new path. Other notes do not change: the result lists the notes whose links into it no longer work.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "old_path": "<old_path>",
      "new_path": "<new_path>"
    },
    "name": "move_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`new_path`	Yes	New path for the folder
`old_path`	Yes	Current path of the folder

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.34.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the recursive scope, the failure mode on path collision, and the non-obvious side effect that inbound links break while other notes are untouched. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or whether overwriting is ever possible, but the mutation risk profile is substantially covered.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, when it fails, and what side effect the result reports. The action is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by explaining that the result lists notes whose inbound links no longer work — enough for an agent to interpret the response. Only the exact response shape and any permission requirements remain unspecified, which is minor for a two-parameter tool.

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 as old/new paths. The description adds only the framing that moving to a different name constitutes a rename, which is mild added meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb pair and resource: "Move or rename a folder with all its notes and subfolders." The recursive scope (notes plus subfolders) is stated explicitly, which cleanly separates it from a note-level move tool without needing to name one.

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?

It supplies a concrete gating condition — "Fails if a folder already exists at the new path" — which tells the agent when the call will be rejected and must be pre-checked. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., a note-level move) or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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