Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
devonthink3-mcp

devonthink3-mcp

by waylake
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

dt3_databases

Read-onlyIdempotent

List permitted open DEVONthink databases and their root UUIDs, refreshing as databases open or close.

Instructions

List permitted currently open databases and their root UUIDs. Refresh as databases open/close. Run the local setup CLI to change access policy.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "dt3_databases"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
databasesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already cover the safety profile. The description reinforces this with 'List' and 'Refresh as databases open/close' which imply no state changes. Adds the 'permitted' access qualifier without conflicting with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The first states the purpose, the second adds operational context (refresh timing and policy change alternative). Every word 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?

Sufficient for a simple no-parameter tool. The description includes the output hint ('root UUIDs'), the access scope ('permitted'), and the non-goal (policy changes). It doesn't list the exact output structure, but that is not essential given the trivial signature.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

No parameters exist, and the schema covers 100% of them. The description adds no parameter details (unnecessary), but the empty schema is self-explanatory. A score of 4 reflects that no parameters are present, making this dimension trivially satisfied.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the action (List), resource (databases), and qualifiers (permitted, currently open, with root UUIDs). The verb is specific and unambiguous, and the description differentiates from sibling tools like 'status' or 'search'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides practical guidance: 'Refresh as databases open/close' indicates when to call this tool, and 'Run the local setup CLI to change access policy' tells the user what to use instead for policy changes. Lacks a direct 'use this when...' phrase but is sufficiently helpful.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools