Skip to main content
Glama
jamesfishwick

Slipbox MCP Server

by jamesfishwick
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

slipbox_search_notes

Find notes by text, tags, or type. Combine filters to search titles and content for matching Zettelkasten entries.

Instructions

Search for notes by text, tags, or type.

Searches across titles and content. Combine parameters for precise filtering.

Examples:

  • Search by topic: query="poetry revision"

  • Filter by tag: tags="craft,poetry"

  • Find structure notes: note_type="structure"

  • Combined: query="metaphor" tags="poetry" limit=5

Args: query: Text to search in titles and content (optional) tags: Comma-separated tags to filter by, e.g. "poetry,craft" (optional) note_type: Filter by type: fleeting/literature/permanent/structure/hub (optional) limit: Maximum results to return (default: 10)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNo
limitNo
queryNo
note_typeNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.4
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {
+      "title": "Result",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "title": "slipbox_search_notesOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, permissions, ordering, pagination, or behavior when no query is supplied (e.g., returns all notes). It only states the action, not the consequences or edge cases. This is a significant gap for a search tool that could return unexpected results if called with empty parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence, followed by explanatory text and a formatted Args section. It uses examples to illustrate usage without being verbose. It could be slightly more concise in the intro, but the structure is logical and front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words.

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 tool has 4 optional parameters and no required ones, the description covers each parameter's semantics well. However, it omits edge-case behavior such as what happens with no parameters (does it return all notes?) or how results are ordered. Since an output schema exists, return format is covered, but behavioral edge cases are not. It's adequate for basic usage but leaves some ambiguity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does this thoroughly: query searches titles and content, tags are comma-separated, note_type lists allowed values (fleeting/literature/permanent/structure/hub), and limit has a default of 10. Examples illustrate parameter combinations. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's minimal type/default information.

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 'Search for notes by text, tags, or type' and elaborates that it searches across titles and content. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like slipbox_get_note (retrieves a single note) or slipbox_list_notes_by_date (lists by date). The verb 'search' and resource 'notes' are explicit, making the purpose 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?

The description provides concrete examples for each parameter combination, demonstrating when to use query, tags, note_type, and limit. It implies usage scenarios clearly. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, the sibling tools have distinct purposes, so an agent can infer appropriate usage. It's strong but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools