Retrieve shared notes for an exact repository path, ordered by most recent updates, to surface relevant project knowledge without worktree resolution.
List knowledge for an exact repository-path key, ordered by most recently updated. Worktrees do not automatically share this key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | Exact repository-path key, usually the main checkout path for shared notes; no worktree/family resolution. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: results are ordered by most recently updated, and the key is not shared across worktrees. It still omits return shape, result limits/pagination, and any permission or auth expectations for a read over a knowledge store.
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 compact sentences, zero padding, with the core purpose front-loaded and the scoping caveat second. The worktree sentence is terse enough to border on cryptic, but it earns its place as a distinct warning.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, and key scoping, which is close to adequate. It stops short of saying whether the listing can be large or truncated, which is the one piece of context an agent would need to call it safely.
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%, so the sole parameter is already fully documented. The description restates the exact-key constraint and 'no worktree/family resolution' but adds no format examples or guidance beyond what the schema text already says, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (List) and resource (knowledge) with an explicit scope qualifier (exact repository-path key) and an ordering guarantee. It does not name the nearest sibling search_knowledge, so an agent must infer the list-vs-search distinction rather than being told directly.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the exact-key scoping and recency ordering suggest this is the tool for enumerating everything under one repo rather than querying. There is no explicit 'use this instead of search_knowledge when...' routing and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed