List the current user's notes with page and limit controls, filtering by active or deleted status to support note management.
List current user's notes. GET /notes. 详见 references/api/note_api.md
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, default 1 | |
| limit | No | Page size, default 20 | |
| status | No | Status filter: 0=active, 9=deleted |
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 full behavioral burden. 'GET /notes' implies a read-only operation and scoping to the current user, which is useful. However, it does not disclose permissions, pagination behavior, or what happens with the status filter beyond what the schema states.
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?
The description is very short and front-loads the core action before the endpoint. The final reference to an external Chinese documentation path is somewhat opaque, but the overall structure remains efficient and free of filler.
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 tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke it. It still lacks usage context, authentication requirements, and any behavioral notes beyond the HTTP method, leaving gaps that an agent might need to infer.
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 100%, so all three parameters (page, limit, status) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List current user's notes.' This is clearly different from sibling tools that list docs or search content. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like yuque_list_docs or yuque_search, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The implied usage is merely 'if you want to list notes,' which is too thin for a 5-point usage dimension.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.