Display a user's OneNote notebooks as an in-chat card with a markdown fallback. Use it to list and browse available notebooks in AI assistant conversations.
Show the user's OneNote notebooks as a rich in-chat card.
ToolResult: PrefabApp card with one row per notebook, plus a plain-text markdown fallback for hosts that do not render apps.
show_notebooks_card()
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden. It does disclose the return shape (card with one row per notebook, plus a markdown fallback) which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation.
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?
Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by short Return Format and Examples sections. The sections are slightly redundant for such a trivial tool but nothing is wasted.
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?
For a zero-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return format, and example. It is adequate but incomplete: no auth prerequisite or alternative-tool routing, which matters given the many overlapping OneNote siblings.
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?
Zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description correctly shows an empty-argument invocation example, reinforcing that the tool takes no input.
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?
States a specific verb (show) and resource (notebooks) with the rendering mode (in-chat card). It is distinguishable from onenote_list_notebooks only implicitly via 'card', which may not be enough for an agent to disambiguate the two siblings without reading both schemas.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. It never explains when a card view is preferable to onenote_list_notebooks, which is the obvious alternative for the same data, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.