LINE WORKS AiNote (unofficial)

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_notes

Get AI meeting notes newest first, returning title, creation date, and audio length. Use the noteId from the result to fetch summaries or transcripts.

Instructions

AiNote のノート一覧を新しい順に取得する。要約も文字起こしも含まない。

タイトル・作成日時・音声の長さのみを返す。内容を読むには、
ここで得た noteId を get_note_summary に渡す。

Args:
    count: 取得件数。既定 20。
    cursor: 前回の応答の nextCursor。次ページを取得する場合に指定する。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`cursor`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals ordering (newest first), scope (no summaries or transcripts), the exact fields returned (title, created date, audio length), and pagination semantics. It does not mention auth or error behavior, but for a read-only list operation this is sufficient.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by exclusions and return fields, then a useful pointer to get_note_summary, and a concise Args section. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no repetition.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and only two optional parameters, the description covers ordering, pagination, returned fields, and the next-step workflow. A slight gap is the absence of any guidance about when search_notes is preferable, but that is not strictly required to invoke list_notes correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides only types and defaults with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates: 'count' is explained as the number of items to retrieve with a default of 20, and 'cursor' is explained as the previous response's nextCursor for pagination.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'AiNote のノート一覧を新しい順に取得する' (get a list of AiNote notes in newest order). It explicitly excludes summaries and transcripts, which distinguishes it from get_note_summary and get_note_transcript.

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 explains pagination by instructing the agent to pass the previous nextCursor to obtain the next page, and it routes content reading to get_note_summary. However, it does not explicitly contrast with search_notes for keyword-based retrieval, though the list vs. search distinction is reasonably inferable.

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

Deploy Server