Read one public note by slug (from list_notes), old slug, or permanent ID (iil:note:...). Returns the note's markdown, a Cite this block, and an agent packet (claim, 1-3 passages, provenance, confidence, as_of) for injection. Optional sections: heading or bold-label names to return only those parts; pass [] to list the available sections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| sections | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds real substance: it enumerates what comes back (markdown, Cite this block, agent packet with claim, passages, provenance, confidence, as_of) and explains the special-case behavior of passing an empty array to list sections. This is well beyond what the structured fields convey.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the tool and followed by return contents and optional-section behavior. The parenthetical field list for the agent packet is dense but each term earns its place as return-value disclosure.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values and it does completely, including the optional section-filtering path. For a two-parameter read tool with only read-only annotations, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 0% and every schema field is a bare string/array with no descriptions, so the description carries the full burden and does so: slug accepts a current slug, a legacy slug, or a permanent iil:note:identifier, and sections takes heading or bold-label names with [] as a discovery affordance. That empty-array semantics is non-obvious and cannot be inferred from the schema.
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 (read one public note) plus the accepted identifier forms, which clearly separates it from the list_notes/search_notes siblings that produce those identifiers. It never explicitly contrasts itself with search_notes or get_fact, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
Gives clear context: use it with a slug obtained from list_notes, or an old slug, or a permanent iil:note ID, which tells the agent when this tool is the right follow-up call. It stops short of stating exclusions or when a different sibling (get_fact, cite, related_notes) is preferable.
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.
