list_section_groupsFind OneNote section groups by notebook or across all notebooks to locate where sections and subgroups are stored.
Lists OneNote section groups (folders that contain sections and/or other section groups), optionally scoped to a single notebook.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notebookId | No | Optional notebook ID to scope the listing. If omitted, lists section groups across all notebooks. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and optional scoping; it does not disclose whether the returned list is flat or hierarchical, whether nested section groups are included, any pagination behavior, or what the response structure looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool that lists potentially nested structures.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds the scoping caveat. No wasted words.
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?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the core behavior. However, it leaves ambiguity about whether the listing includes nested section groups recursively or just top-level ones, and does not specify the return format. For an agent deciding whether this tool meets its need, that ambiguity is a notable 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 coverage is 100% (the single parameter notebookId is described in the schema as optional and explains the behavior when omitted). The tool description adds little beyond the schema—it only restates 'optionally scoped to a single notebook', which is less detailed than the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Lists' and the resource 'section groups', and even defines what section groups are (folders containing sections and/or other section groups). It distinguishes the resource from siblings like list_sections or list_notebooks by naming the specific object type, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool to differentiate from.
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?
The description mentions optional scoping to a notebook, giving context on the notebookId parameter, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_sections, get_notebook_tree, or other listing tools. There is no when/when-not or explicit alternative mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.