list_notesRetrieve Apple Notes ordered by last modified, filtered by folder if needed, skipping password-protected entries. Limit results up to 200.
List notes, most recently modified first. Optionally restrict to one folder. Password-protected notes are skipped. Limit defaults to 50, max 200.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum notes to return (default 50, max 200). | |
| folder | No | Restrict results to this folder name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that: notes are sorted by most recent modification, password-protected notes are skipped, and the limit defaults to 50. These are useful execution-relevant traits not present in the annotations.
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?
Two short sentences deliver the core function, ordering, filtering, access behavior, and limit policy. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important behavior is front-loaded.
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?
The tool is simple, read-only, and has complete schema coverage, so the description covers the essential invocation details. However, there is no output schema and the description does not state what the returned notes contain (metadata vs full content), nor does it explicitly say that omitting folder lists all folders. A little more return-value context would make it fully complete.
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 100%, so the schema already documents folder and limit fully. The description repeats that limit defaults to 50 and max is 200, and that folder restricts results, but adds no meaning beyond the existing parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific action and resource: 'List notes, most recently modified first.' It also clarifies scope with optional folder restriction. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling search_notes, but the verb 'list' plus the ordering makes the core purpose unambiguous.
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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus search_notes, get_note, or list_folders. The only usage-related hint is 'Optionally restrict to one folder,' which implies use cases but does not name alternatives or exclusions explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.