onenote-mcp

onenote_get_notebook

Retrieve details of a specific OneNote notebook by ID, including its name, sections URL, and section groups URL for use in note management workflows.

Instructions

Get details of a specific OneNote notebook.

Return Format

Markdown string with notebook name, ID, sections URL, and section groups URL.

Examples

onenote_get_notebook(notebook_id="0-ABC123...")

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "notebook_id": "<notebook_id>"
    },
    "name": "onenote_get_notebook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`notebook_id`	Yes	The ID of the notebook to retrieve

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.4Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return format (markdown with name, ID, sections URL, section groups URL), which is genuine behavioral context, but it says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior for invalid IDs, or 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Short and front-loaded: one-line purpose followed by return format and an example. Headers are used cleanly and nothing is padded, though the sections are almost trivially small.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with a full output schema, the definition covers purpose, return shape and an example. Missing only sibling differentiation and any note on auth or failure modes, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The example call reinforces the notebook_id argument but adds no format or source guidance beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get details of a specific OneNote notebook'), which is unambiguous. However it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as onenote_get_notebook_toc or onenote_list_notebooks, so the agent must infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like onenote_get_notebook_toc and onenote_list_notebooks present, the description should say when to pick this one; it gives only a bare example call.

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