List user knowledge entries filtered by source type or tag to review investment frameworks, journal notes, reading notes, and insights.
列出用户知识条目，可按来源类型或标签筛选。
Args:
source_type: 按来源类型过滤（framework / journal / reading_notes / insight）
tag: 按标签过滤（如 "framework:gold"）
limit: 返回条目数量上限，默认 50
Returns:
{count, items: [{id, title, tags, source_type, created_at}, ...]}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| source_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ({count, items: [...]}) and the default limit, which is helpful behavioral context, but says nothing about ordering, pagination beyond limit, or permissions. Moderate coverage for a no-annotation tool.
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?
Front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then organizes Args and Returns cleanly. Every section earns its place; the docstring-style formatting is slightly verbose but not wasteful.
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 3-param tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description documents each parameter and the return structure, which is substantial. The only real gap is the missing routing guidance away from user_knowledge_search.
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 0% (params have only titles and defaults, no descriptions or enums), so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates source_type values (framework / journal / reading_notes / insight), gives a tag example ("framework:gold"), and states limit's default of 50. This adds real meaning the schema lacks.
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 and resource ("列出用户知识条目" = list user knowledge entries) and names the filtering scope (source type or tag). It clearly distinguishes itself as a listing operation, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling user_knowledge_search, which an agent might confuse it with.
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 implies usage through "可按来源类型或标签筛选" but never states when to use this list tool versus user_knowledge_search, nor any prerequisite such as empty filters returning everything. Usage is inferable but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.