chat_listRetrieve chat sessions for a notebook to review past interactions and manage ongoing research. Specify the notebook ID or title to see available chats.
List chat sessions for a notebook.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max chat sessions to return (default: 20) | |
| notebook_id | Yes | Notebook ID or title alias |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.2Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Max chat sessions to return (default: 20)"Input schema / properties / notebook_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Notebook ID or title alias"v0.9.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read-only enumeration behavior ('List') and the notebook scoping, but does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, or whether returned chat sessions include full messages. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, resource, and scope efficiently, and every word earns its place.
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 low-complexity list tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It lacks explicit alternative routing and detailed behavioral notes, but an agent can correctly invoke it with the provided schema and description.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds only the notebook scoping context for notebook_id and does not add semantic detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('chat sessions') and scopes them to a notebook, clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like chat_get, chat_configure, and chat_export, which operate on individual chats or configure them.
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 when to use the tool: when you need a list of chat sessions for a notebook. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives (e.g., chat_get for a single session) or mention exclusions, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.