note-mcp

List my note.com notes

note_list_my_notes

Lists notes from your note.com account with pagination; optionally request the raw internal payload with fields='full'.

Instructions

Lists notes for the authenticated note.com account via GET /v2/note_list/contents?limit=20&page=1. Defaults to lightweight summary output; pass fields: "full" for the raw internal API payload.

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": "note_list_my_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`page`	No
`limit`	No
`fields`	No	summary
`includeBody`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety and behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the HTTP method (GET), output modes (summary vs full raw payload), and includes pagination defaults via the URL. However, it does not mention the includeBody parameter behavior or potential rate limits.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and endpoint, the second clarifies the key output parameter. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

The tool has no output schema and 4 parameters, yet the description covers the main listing behavior and output modes. However, it omits the semantics of 'includeBody' and does not describe the return structure beyond 'summary' vs 'raw internal API payload', leaving noticeable gaps for full functional understanding.

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 must compensate. It only explains the 'fields' parameter (summary default, full for raw payload). The 'page' and 'limit' parameters are only indirectly visible in the URL, and 'includeBody' is entirely unexplained, leaving a significant semantic gap.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses the specific verb 'Lists' with a clear resource ('notes for the authenticated note.com account') and includes the exact endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings like note_list_drafts by specifying 'my notes' and the authenticated account context.

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 provides clear context (reads notes for the authenticated user via a specific GET endpoint) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like note_list_drafts or note_get_note. It lacks exclusions or alternative tool references.

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