Retrieve project notes by specifying a project ID. Optionally set the number of results per page (default 25, max 100) to get precise, actionable notes for project management.
Search for notes on a specific project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | The project ID to search notes for | |
| pageSize | No | Number of results to return (default: 25, max: 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.18.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should compensate. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, nor does it explain pagination behavior or potential side effects. The 'pageSize' parameter hints at pagination, but there's no indication of how to navigate results.
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?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words. It is concise, though it could benefit from a slightly more structured explanation (e.g., specifying that it returns a list of notes).
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?
Lacks essential context for a search tool: no mention of return format, error handling, or how to use the results. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide more detail about what the agent can expect.
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?
Input schema covers both parameters fully (100%), so additional description is not needed. The description adds no extra meaning; the schema already explains 'projectId' and 'pageSize' adequately.
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?
Description clearly states the action ('search') and resource ('notes on a specific project'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'autotask_get_project_note' and 'autotask_create_project_note'. However, it lacks specifics about the search scope or return format.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'autotask_get_project_note' for a single note, or other search tools). The description does not mention intended use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.