Check Markdown backup progress for OneNote, including files written, pages completed, and output directory.
Show Markdown backup progress (files written, output dir).
Markdown string with state, pages done/total, file count, output dir.
onenote_export_status()
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return format (Markdown string with state, pages done/total, file count, output dir), which is helpful behavioral context. However, it does not describe whether this is a safe read-only operation, potential side effects, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a monitoring tool.
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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and then efficiently structured with sections for return format and examples. It is brief and every sentence adds value, though the examples section is redundant given the zero-parameter schema.
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 complexity (zero parameters, output schema exists), the description is largely complete by stating the return format and purpose. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus similar status tools (e.g., onenote_index_status), which would enhance completeness for an agent navigating multiple status tools.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema description coverage is 100% and the description does not need to document any inputs. The baseline score for zero parameters is 4, as the description correctly omits parameter details, focusing instead on output semantics.
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 a specific purpose: 'Show Markdown backup progress,' specifying files written and output directory. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like onenote_index_status, which is also a status tool, leaving some ambiguity about when to use one versus the other.
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 implies usage during an export operation but provides no explicit guidance on when to call this tool, such as prerequisites (e.g., must be called after starting an export) or timing. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.