Apple Notes MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context about the 'fast' performance and dependency on index_build, which is useful behavioral information not in the annotations. However, it doesn't detail rate limits, error conditions, or output format.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every part ('Fast search', 'using the local index', 'run index_build first') adds essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with index dependency), annotations cover safety aspects, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the core purpose and prerequisite, though it could better differentiate from siblings and detail parameter usage.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions no parameters, failing to explain what 'query' or 'limit' mean. Baseline is 3 since the schema covers the structure, but the description adds no semantic value to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb ('search') and resource ('local index'), specifying it's a 'fast search' operation. It distinguishes from the generic 'notes.search' sibling by mentioning the index-based approach, though it doesn't fully explain how it differs in functionality or results.

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 provides explicit guidance to 'run index_build first', indicating a prerequisite. It implies when to use this tool (for fast search) versus alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly name when to use the regular 'notes.search' or other search-related tools.

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