Lists available .md and .txt note files with sizes in bytes, so you can see which local notes are searchable.
List the note files (.md/.txt) available to search, with sizes in bytes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the file-type filter and the byte-size output detail, but says nothing about scope (which directory/workspace is listed) or ordering.
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 file-type constraint and output unit are packed in without waste.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and a zero-parameter tool has little else to specify. The only gap is the unstated scope of what 'available' means (which directory or store is enumerated).
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is also 100%, leaving nothing for the description to compensate for.
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 the note files') and adds useful scope detail: only .md/.txt files, with sizes in bytes. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling search_notes or read_note, but 'available to search' hints at the relationship between the listed corpus and search_notes.
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 'available to search' implies this is a discovery step preceding search_notes, but the description never states when to use this versus search_notes or read_note, nor any exclusions. Usage must be inferred 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.