list_notes_in_notebookRetrieve notes from a specific Joplin notebook without a search query by providing its notebook_id. Find the ID using list_notebooks.
List notes in a notebook without a search query. Use list_notebooks to find a notebook_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| notebook_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the listing behavior and prerequisite but omits details such as pagination, permissions, or error behavior. With an output schema present, return values need not be described, but other behavioral aspects remain unaddressed.
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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the core action and immediately follow with essential prerequisite guidance. No superfluous information.
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?
Given no annotations, an output schema present, and 0% schema parameter description coverage, the description covers the required notebook_id but leaves the limit parameter unexplained. It also lacks behavioral details common for list operations, such as pagination or default limits.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that notebook_id is required and directs the agent to obtain it via list_notebooks. However, it says nothing about the 'limit' parameter, which is undocumented in both schema and description.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('notes in a notebook') with scope clarified by 'without a search query'. It doesn't explicitly name the contrasting sibling search_notes, but the phrase 'without a search query' implicitly distinguishes it from search-based note retrieval.
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?
Provides a clear condition ('without a search query') and a prerequisite step ('Use list_notebooks to find a notebook_id'), which guides the agent on when and how to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name the alternative search_notes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.