List all footnotes in a story or the active document to review annotations and references.
List all footnotes in a story or the active document
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| storyIndex | No | ||
| document_id | No | Which open document to act on: a name (see document_listOpen) or a 0-based index. Defaults to the front document. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated, or what a returned footnote contains; only 'list all' hints at read-only semantics.
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?
A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented storyIndex parameter, the definition leaves real gaps: an agent cannot tell what a footnote result looks like or how to source a story index. More disclosure is warranted for a tool with zero structured support.
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 50%: document_id is documented in the schema, but storyIndex has no description anywhere. The phrasing 'in a story or the active document' loosely maps to the two parameters but never explains what a story index is or where to obtain one (e.g. text_getStories).
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 ('List') and resource ('footnotes') plus its scope ('in a story or the active document'). This cleanly distinguishes it from the note_addFootnote/note_addEndnote siblings, though it doesn't clarify that endnotes are out of scope.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus note_footnoteOptions or note_addEndnote, and no indication of when to supply storyIndex versus document_id. The agent must infer the two calling modes entirely from the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.