Find notes whose title or body contains a given text, using a case-insensitive query with an optional limit on how many results are returned.
Find notes whose title or body contains the query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Case-insensitive text to look for in titles and bodies. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the matching semantics (substring containment across title AND body, not just one field), which is genuinely useful behavior beyond the name; but it says nothing about result ordering, whether the limit truncates silently, or scope/permission behavior.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the matching scope is stated before any caveat would be needed. 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?
Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and there are only two parameters. Still, for a tool with zero annotations, the description omits ordering, truncation behavior at 'limit', and any scope constraints — leaving the agent to guess at result semantics.
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 coverage is 50%: 'query' is documented in the schema as case-insensitive, and the description reinforces it by tying matching to title/body. The 'limit' parameter has no description in either place, only a default of 10 and a max of 50, so the description fails to compensate for the uncovered half.
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?
Clear verb ('Find') plus resource ('notes') and even the matching scope (title or body). It does not explicitly name the sibling add_note, but the read-vs-write distinction is obvious from the verb, so an agent can differentiate without more.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb 'Find' — the description never states when to reach for this over add_note or any other lookup path, nor any exclusions. For a two-tool sibling set where the alternative is a write, the implication is strong enough to be workable but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.