Retrieve notes from your Obsidian vault and filter them by folder prefix or tag to locate relevant content quickly.
List notes, optionally filtered by folder prefix or tag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | Filter by tag. # optional, case-insensitive; nested child tags match ("project" matches project/alpha). | |
| limit | No | Max results (1–500, default 100). | |
| folder | No | Vault-relative folder prefix. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.26Input schema / properties / tag / descriptionPrevious value: -"Filter by tag (# prefix optional)."New value: +"Filter by tag. # optional, case-insensitive; nested child tags match (\"project\" matches project/alpha)."v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that – no ordering, return format, or pagination behavior – so it contributes no behavioral value.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the primary action front-loaded and no waste. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity leaves the gaps noted above unfilled.
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 read-only list tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the essentials. It is adequate but should do more to distinguish this listing tool from its query/search 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so tag, limit (default 100, range 1–500), and folder are all documented in the schema. The description only gestures at folder/tag filtering and omits limit, adding no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ("List notes") plus its filter scope, so an agent knows what it does. However, it does not differentiate from overlapping siblings like search, query_notes, or read_notes, so it falls short of the top band.
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 phrase "optionally filtered by folder prefix or tag" hints at usage but gives no when-to-use, when-not, or named alternatives. An agent choosing between this and query_notes/search gets no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.