list_notesGet a sorted list of note IDs from your vault, filter by folder prefix, and page through results to locate and manage notes.
List note ids, sorted, with optional folder prefix and pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| prefix | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'sorted' and 'pagination', which are behavioral traits, and implies a read-only operation by using 'list'. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it describe defaults or error behavior. The read-only nature is inferred, not stated.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core function and packs all essential information efficiently. Every word adds value, making it an exemplary model of conciseness.
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, the description covers the essentials: it returns ids, is sorted, supports a folder prefix, and includes pagination. The output schema likely describes the exact return shape, so missing details like sort order direction are acceptable. The lack of explicit safety info is a minor gap given the read-only nature implied by 'list'.
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?
Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does so by mapping 'folder prefix' to the 'prefix' parameter and 'pagination' to 'limit' and 'offset'. However, it does not explain how pagination works (e.g., offset semantics, limit defaults) or the exact effect of the prefix. This provides some value but leaves details to be inferred from the schema types and defaults.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('note ids'), and key attributes ('sorted', 'optional folder prefix', 'pagination'). This distinguishes it from siblings like read_note or list_directory, which target different resources or actions. The phrasing is specific and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool returns.
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?
The description implies usage through its clear purpose but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like list_directory or read_notes. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided. The context is reasonably clear for a basic list operation, but explicit guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.