onenote-mcp

onenote_index_start

Start a background build or refresh of the local full-text search index, indexing OneNote page content into SQLite FTS5 while skipping unchanged pages.

Instructions

Build (or refresh) the local full-text search index.

Walks all notebooks and indexes page bodies into SQLite FTS5 (skips unchanged pages). Runs in the background - check onenote_index_status.

Return Format

Markdown string confirming started/already-running.

Examples

onenote_index_start()

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "onenote_index_start"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.4Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavior: it walks all notebooks, skips unchanged pages, and runs asynchronously in the background. It does not state cost, rate limits, or what happens if an index already exists and is partially rebuilt, but the async and skip-unchanged details are valuable and non-obvious.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded purpose, then mechanism and async behavior, then a brief return-format note and an example. Every sentence adds information; nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers the tool's purpose, scope, indexing strategy, background execution, and follow-up status tool, which is everything needed for a zero-parameter tool. The return format note is redundant with the output schema but harmless; the async and skip-unchanged details are the critical context an agent needs.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Zero parameters, so 4 is the correct baseline.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Specific verb (build/refresh) and resource (local full-text search index), plus mechanism (SQLite FTS5) and scope (walks all notebooks, indexes page bodies). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling onenote_search_pages, which queries the index rather than building it.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

States when to build (fresh index) and how to follow up: 'Runs in the background - check onenote_index_status.' It implies usage (build before searching) without an explicit when-not, but the pairing with onenote_index_status gives a clear operational context.

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