search_by_tagFind notes tagged with a specific frontmatter tag. Enter a tag to retrieve all matching notes from your Markdown vault.
Notes carrying a frontmatter tag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | Yes |
| 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns (full notes, metadata, etc.), how it handles missing tags, or any side effects. The single phrase offers essentially no behavioral transparency.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification, not effective conciseness. It is not front-loaded with actionable information; it is a fragment that fails to convey the tool's function.
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?
With one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema that is not described in the tool description, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot correctly infer how to call this tool, what to expect, or when to use it. It needs substantially more context.
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?
The schema has one parameter 'tag' with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the parameter at all. It says 'frontmatter tag' but does not clarify that the 'tag' parameter is the value to match, leaving the parameter's meaning entirely unexplained.
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 is a noun phrase ('Notes carrying a frontmatter tag') rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It implies the tool returns notes with a tag, but it does not explicitly state a search or filtering action, nor does it differentiate from siblings like search_notes or list_notes. This is vague and under-specified.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools (search_notes, list_notes, get_frontmatter) that could overlap, but the description gives no exclusions, conditions, or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.