Get a single note with author and visibility metadata. Use include=user to load author details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Note ID | |
| include | No | Include related resources: 'user' for author details, 'candidate' for full candidate payload with url_backoffice. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / include / descriptionPrevious value: -"Include related resources: 'user' for author details, 'candidate' for full candidate payload with profile_url."New value: +"Include related resources: 'user' for author details, 'candidate' for full candidate payload with url_backoffice."Input schema / properties / include / descriptionPrevious value: -"Include related resources, e.g. 'user' for author details"New value: +"Include related resources: 'user' for author details, 'candidate' for full candidate payload with profile_url."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds only that the tool returns 'author and visibility metadata'. There is no contradiction, and for a read-only fetch, this is sufficient but not rich.
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 sentence states the core action and output, the second provides a key parameter tip. Every word is relevant.
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 get tool with only two parameters and good annotation coverage, the description covers the main purpose and provides a helpful parameter hint. It could mention the return object type, but it's largely complete.
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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining that 'include=user' loads author details, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Include related resources'. This clarifies the parameter's effect.
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 clearly states 'Get a single note' and specifies returning 'author and visibility metadata'. This verb+resource combination is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'hires_list_notes' (list) and 'hires_delete_note' (delete).
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 provides a usage hint ('Use include=user to load author details') but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any prerequisite conditions. It is minimally adequate for a simple get operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.