Lists non-private note paths in a Markdown knowledge base, newest first, with optional folder and substring filters to locate relevant notes.
List note paths (private notes excluded), newest first; optional folder prefix and substring pattern.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| folder | No | ||
| pattern | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does add useful behavioral facts—private notes are omitted and ordering is newest-first—but it does not disclose side effects, pagination behavior, or whether returned paths are absolute or relative.
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, compact sentence front-loads the core operation and packs in the important qualifiers: private exclusion, ordering, and filter types. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 simple list operation, the description is largely sufficient: it states the output (note paths), the scope (private excluded), the order (newest first), and available filters. The missing limit semantics and exact return format are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 0%, but the description partially compensates by interpreting folder as a prefix and pattern as a substring. The limit parameter is left unexplained, so the agent must rely on the name and default value.
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?
The description names a specific operation ('List note paths') and adds scope qualifiers: private notes are excluded and results are newest-first. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like read_note (single-note retrieval) and search_notes (content search).
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 description makes the tool's purpose evident, but it never explicitly states when to prefer list_notes over search_notes or rag_search. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so the agent must infer routing from the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.