SiYuan MCP Server

list_docs

Read-onlyIdempotent

List documents under a specified notebook path, with optional filters for flashcards, hidden items, sorting, and maximum count.

Instructions

列出指定笔记本路径下的文档

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "notebook": "<notebook>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "list_docs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	路径，根目录使用 /
`sort`	No	思源排序模式
`notebook`	Yes	思源块、文档、笔记本或数据库 ID
`flashcard`	No	是否只列出闪卡相关文档
`showHidden`	No	是否显示隐藏文档
`maxListCount`	No	最大数量

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not mention potential pagination, sorting effects, or error behavior beyond schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, though it could benefit from more structure (e.g., brief usage notes).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on return format (no output schema) and behavior with invalid paths or edge cases, which would help completeness.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function in Chinese: '列出指定笔记本路径下的文档' (list documents under specified notebook path). The verb 'list' and resource 'documents' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like search_docs or get_hpath_by_path.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify exclusion criteria or mention sibling tools. Given many sibling tools for document operations, this is a significant gap.

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

Deploy Server