onenote-mcp

onenote_list_sections

List all sections in a OneNote notebook using its notebook ID. Returns numbered sections with page URLs to help you navigate and organize notebook content.

Instructions

List all sections in a OneNote notebook.

Return Format

Markdown string: "📂 Sections in notebook:" with numbered sections and their page URLs.

Examples

onenote_list_sections(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_list_sections"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.4Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does 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 the return shape (a Markdown string with numbered sections and page URLs) and gives an example call, which is useful, but it is silent on auth requirements, error behavior, and whether results are paginated or complete.

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 one-sentence purpose followed by clearly labeled Return Format and Examples sections. Short, well-organized, and every block earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the definition covers purpose, return shape, and an example, which is nearly sufficient. Missing only auth/prerequisite context and routing against the similar TOC sibling.

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% with a single required notebook_id parameter, so the schema already documents it. The example shows a sample ID format ("0-ABC123..."), which adds minor value, but no new semantics 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: "List all sections in a OneNote notebook." An agent can distinguish it from onenote_list_pages and onenote_list_notebooks by resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling onenote_get_notebook_toc, which likely also returns section info.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the name and the scope (sections within a notebook) but never stated as when-to-use. No guidance about prerequisites such as authentication or what to do if the notebook ID is unknown, and no exclusions against the similar TOC tool.

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