list_field_notesEvery published field note with its title, category and date, newest first. Use this to see the full range of what has been written before searching within it, then get_field_note to read one in full.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| notes | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: only published field notes are returned, ordering is newest first, and each item includes title, category, and date. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but that gap is minor given the output schema is present.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the first states the full scope, ordering, and included fields; the second provides adjacent tool guidance. The key purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
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?
The description is complete for a parameterless, read-only list tool: it defines the output fields, ordering, and the workflow for reading a full note. The output schema covers return structure, so no additional return-value detail is needed.
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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description correctly focuses on output behavior instead, which is appropriate for a parameterless list tool.
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: it lists every published field note, with title, category, and date, newest first. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_field_note (read one note) and search_field_notes (search within notes) by framing the list as the full range before searching.
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 explicitly tells the agent to use this tool to see the full range of what has been written before searching within it, then use get_field_note to read a note in full. This gives a clear workflow and points to an alternative without needing to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: field notes have search/list/get, sprint details stand alone, and roundtables have list/request. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between any pair.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_field_note, get_sprint_details, list_field_notes, list_upcoming_tables, request_table_seat, search_field_notes. The verbs are clear and predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for a personal site offering written content, one service offering, and event seat requests. Each tool has a clear reason to exist and none feel redundant.
The read-only content workflow is fully covered with search, list, and get-by-reference. The roundtable workflow covers listing availability and requesting a seat. The service inquiry surface is complete for its stated purpose.