Skip to main content
Glama
iwaohig

LINE WORKS AiNote (unofficial)

search_notes

Find notes in LINE WORKS AiNote by keyword. Use cursor to paginate through results when more are needed; summaries and transcripts are excluded.

Instructions

AiNote のノートをキーワードで検索する。要約も文字起こしも含まない。

検索 API の呼び出し上限は 60 回/分と他より厳しい (ツール側で 1 秒間隔に制限する)。
同じ意図でキーワードを言い換えて繰り返し検索しないこと。
件数が足りない場合は cursor でページを進める。

Args:
    query: 検索キーワード (必須)。
    count: 取得件数。既定 20。
    cursor: 前回の応答の nextCursor。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNo
queryYes
cursorNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral constraints: the stricter API quota, the tool-side 1-second throttle, and pagination via nextCursor. It does not discuss side effects/auth, but a keyword search is read-only and the output schema covers return shape.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence for purpose, then behavioral warnings, then a short Args list. Every sentence earns its place and the structured layout makes it easy to scan.

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?

For a simple three-parameter search tool with an output schema present, the description covers query semantics, pagination, default count, and rate-limit behavior. It could be more explicit about what fields are searched or how to route to siblings, but nothing essential for a correct first call is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the Args section in the description compensates. It defines query as required, count as result count with default 20, and cursor as the previous response's nextCursor. This adds the key cursor semantics that the schema does not convey.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'AiNote のノートをキーワードで検索する' (search AiNote notes by keyword). It also explicitly states that summaries and transcripts are not included, which helps distinguish it from the sibling tools get_note_summary and get_note_transcript. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives concrete invocation guidance: respect the 60-calls/minute limit (throttled to 1-second intervals), don't re-run searches with paraphrased keywords, and page with cursor when results are insufficient. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, but the 'does not include summaries/transcripts' statement and sibling names imply when those tools would be needed.

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