search_pagesSearch OneNote notebooks with a full-text query to get matching page IDs, titles, and parent section or notebook information.
Searches OneNote pages by full-text query. Returns matching pages with IDs, titles, and parent section/notebook info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of pages to return (default 25, max 100). | |
| query | Yes | Full-text search query against page titles and content. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure (IDs, titles, parent info) but does not mention pagination behavior, sorting, scope (e.g., across all notebooks vs. a specific one), or error handling for no matches. The lack of side effects is implied by 'Searches' but not explicitly confirmed. It provides some transparency but leaves important behavioral details unstated.
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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and result, and every word earns its place. It is appropriately concise for a simple search tool.
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 (2 params, no output schema), but the description omits the search scope (global across all notebooks vs. within a specific notebook) and any ordering or pagination details. The presence of a sibling find_pages suggests a need for differentiation, which is absent. It covers the basics but leaves key contextual gaps.
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 100%: both 'query' and 'limit' are described in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It neither clarifies nor adds to the parameter definitions.
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 uses a specific verb ('Searches') and resource ('OneNote pages') with a clear method ('full-text query'). It also states the return fields (IDs, titles, parent section/notebook info), which distinguishes it from list_pages or find_pages. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_pages or list_pages. It does not mention any exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to a different sibling. The intended usage is implied (full-text search) but no explicit comparison is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.