NoteKing MCP

noteking_list_projects

List and search NoteKing note projects or workspaces with note counts and pagination to locate the right project.

Instructions

List and search note projects / workspaces in NoteKing with note count metrics and pagination

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "noteking_list_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Search query to filter projects by name or description
`limit`	No	Number of projects to return (default 50, max 100)
`offset`	No	Pagination offset (default 0)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It does signal that this is a read/enumeration operation and discloses that results include computed note counts and are paginated, which is useful. It omits auth requirements, sort order, and whether counts are exact or cached.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded clause with no filler; the action, resource, and return characteristics come first. It is slightly compressed to the point of being a title restatement rather than an explanatory sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple three-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the essentials are covered. However, the agent is not told the default ordering, the response envelope, or how note counts are derived, which matters for interpreting results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so q, limit, and offset are fully documented in the schema, including defaults and max. The description mentions search and pagination in general terms but adds no syntax, matching behavior, or pagination-strategy detail beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb pair (list/search) and resource (note projects / workspaces) plus the extra payload (note count metrics) and pagination. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with noteking_get_project or noteking_list_notes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'list and search'. There is no statement of when to call this versus noteking_get_project for a single project, nor any note about defaults or prerequisites. The agent must infer the routing decision from sibling names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server