search_notesSearch Joplin notes by keyword and return matching note titles and IDs for quick note lookup.
Search Joplin notes by keyword. Returns matching note titles and ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1v0.3.0v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses the return shape ('titles and ids'). It says nothing about match semantics (substring, case, fuzzy), ordering, or how limit truncates results.
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 short front-loaded sentences covering purpose and return value with zero filler. Nothing is wasted or buried.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, and the tool is a simple two-parameter read. However, with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the missing match semantics and limit behavior leave real gaps for an agent to call it correctly.
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 both parameters are undocumented in structured form. The description hints that 'query' is a keyword but says nothing about the 'limit' parameter or its default of 20, leaving half the surface unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Joplin notes') plus the matching mechanism ('by keyword'), which cleanly separates it from get_note and list_notes_in_notebook. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
No guidance on when to choose this over the adjacent retrieval tools such as list_notes_in_notebook, get_notes_by_tag, or get_note. The agent must infer the search-vs-list distinction on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.