list_notesBrowse personal knowledge vault notes by folder, type, or tag, sorted by most recent modification. Use for scanning; use content search for text queries.
List notes by folder, type, or tag, most recently modified first. Use for browsing; use search_notes for content queries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | Tag filter (no #) | |
| type | No | Note type filter | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 30) | |
| folder | No | Folder prefix, e.g. 'people' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the sort order ('most recently modified first'), which is genuinely useful and not in the schema, but says nothing about the default result cap, pagination, or what happens when filters are combined. For a read-only list operation the risk profile is low, so this partial disclosure is adequate rather than rich.
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 sentences, no filler. The capability and the ordering are front-loaded, with the sibling routing in the second sentence where it belongs.
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 zero-required-parameter read tool, the description covers filters, ordering, and alternative routing. The gap is that no output schema exists, so it could have said what a result looks like (note identifiers/titles) or how the default limit behaves. Minor omissions only.
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 coverage is 100% and every parameter already has a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the folder/type/tag filters without adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema, and never mentions the 'limit' parameter or its default. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Specific verb (List) plus resource (notes) plus the three filter dimensions (folder, type, tag) and the ordering guarantee. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (search_notes), so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.
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?
States the use case directly: 'Use for browsing' versus 'use search_notes for content queries.' This is an explicit when/when-not with a named alternative, leaving nothing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.