Apple Notes MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation with a closed world. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as pagination, sorting, or error conditions. Since annotations cover key aspects, a baseline score is appropriate, but no extra value is provided.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, read-only, with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete for its purpose. However, it lacks context on usage relative to siblings, which is a minor gap. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, so it's mostly adequate.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it meets expectations without redundancy. A score of 4 reflects that it appropriately handles this simple case.

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 ('List') and resource ('all Apple Notes folders'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'folders.contents' or 'notes.list', which might also list folders or folder contents, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'folders.contents' (which might list contents of a specific folder) and 'notes.list' (which might list notes), there's no indication of when this tool is preferred or what its specific scope is.

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