Find accessible Apple Notes by literal, case-insensitive text in titles and body content; paginate incomplete results using nextCursor.
Search accessible titles and body text using literal case-insensitive text. Check incomplete and nextCursor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| folderId | No | ||
| accountId | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real matching semantics: literal, non-fuzzy, case-insensitive search, plus a pagination instruction to check 'incomplete' and 'nextCursor'. Only the meaning of 'accessible' (permission scoping) is left implicit.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and zero filler. The second sentence is telegraphic ('Check incomplete and nextCursor') but still earns its place as a pagination cue.
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?
With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the return and risk story is adequately handled. However, for a five-parameter search tool with zero schema descriptions, the unexplained folder/account scoping leaves a meaningful gap.
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 carries the full burden, yet it only illuminates 'query'. The folderId and accountId scoping filters — which materially change results — and the limit parameter go entirely 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 (titles and body text), plus the matching mode (literal, case-insensitive). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_notes and read_note, though it never names them explicitly.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. An agent must infer on its own that list_notes is for browsing and read_note for retrieving a known note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.