Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Antinote MCP

Antinote MCP

Official
by maferland
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

list_notes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve saved Antinote notes from a database snapshot, newest first with previews, excluding private, deleted, and empty notes; archived notes are opt-in.

Instructions

List saved Antinote notes from the database snapshot, newest first, with previews. Private, deleted, and empty notes are excluded; archived notes require opt-in. Snapshot may be stale.

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": "list_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
offsetNo
includeArchivedNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: private, deleted and empty notes are filtered out, archived notes need opt-in, and the snapshot may be stale. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or result-shape caveats.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight sentences that front-load what is listed and how it is ordered, then append the filtering and staleness caveats. No filler, no redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a no-required-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering, previews, exclusions, archived opt-in and data freshness. The notable gap is pagination behavior for limit/offset, which neither the schema nor the description explains.

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

Parameters2/5

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 indirectly covers one of three parameters ("archived notes require opt-in" maps to includeArchived). limit and offset are undocumented everywhere, leaving the agent to guess at pagination semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List saved Antinote notes") plus scope and ordering ("from the database snapshot, newest first, with previews"). It is clearly distinct from search_notes or read_note in intent, but it never names a sibling or contrasts itself against one.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage (browse saved notes, opt in to archived ones) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against siblings like search_notes or read_note. The archived opt-in note is the only conditional guidance offered.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools