Skip to main content
Glama

Microsoft Onenote

by io.github.pipeworx-io

List Sections

list_sections
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the sections in a OneNote notebook (Microsoft 365). Pass a notebook_id to list that notebook's sections, or omit it to list all sections across every notebook. Returns each section's id, display name, and created/last-modified times. Use to navigate a user's OneNote notes before listing pages.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notebook_idNoOptional OneNote notebook ID (from list_notebooks). If omitted, returns sections across all notebooks.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds behavior beyond that: the optional parameter changes scope from one notebook to all notebooks, and it discloses the returned fields (id, display name, timestamps). No contradiction 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?

Three short sentences, with the core action and scope front-loaded. Every sentence adds meaning: what is listed, how the parameter changes scope, what is returned, and when to use it.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a one-parameter read-only list tool, the description is complete: it covers filtering semantics, return fields, and usage context. The rich annotations handle safety, so no additional behavioral disclosure is needed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents notebook_id including that omitting it returns all notebooks. The description repeats this behavior rather than adding new semantic detail, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List the sections in a OneNote notebook (Microsoft 365).' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as list_notebooks and list_pages by stating the object type (sections) and the conditional scope across one or all notebooks.

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?

It gives practical guidance on when to call it: 'Use to navigate a user's OneNote notes before listing pages,' which places it in a workflow relative to list_pages. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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

All Microsoft Onenote toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are genuinely easy to confuse: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as currently identical, and the five polymarket_* tools overlap significantly in purpose. There are also wrapper-like pairs such as ai_visibility_check vs. scan_competitor_ai_presence and entity_profile vs. recent_changes vs. compare_entities that require reading long descriptions to disambiguate.

Naming Consistency3/5

The names are mostly lowercase snake_case and readable, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern: entity_profile and recent_changes are noun phrases, pipeworx_trending and pipeworx_feedback use a prefix, ask_pipeworx_beta is a single-family variant, and scan_competitor_ai_presence uses a different structure from ai_visibility_check. The naming is not chaotic, but it is a mix of conventions.

Tool Count1/5

A server labeled Microsoft Onenote exposes 31 tools, none of which actually relate to OneNote note-taking, notebooks, or pages. Even as a general research/prediction-market server, 31 tools is far above the coherent range, and for the stated product purpose this count is wildly inappropriate.

Completeness1/5

For the server's declared OneNote domain, there is zero coverage: no tools for creating, reading, updating, or deleting notes, pages, sections, or notebooks. The actual tool surface is centered on Pipeworx data lookups, Polymarket arbitrage, and memory helpers, which leaves the apparent note-taking domain completely unrepresented.

Resources