Read one public note by slug (from list_notes), old slug, or permanent ID (iil:note:...). Returns the note's markdown, then its permanent ID and a Cite this block (plain text and BibTeX). 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.
Input schema / properties / sectionsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "maxLength": 80,
+ "minLength": 0,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 10,
+ "type": "array"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish this as a safe, non-open-world read. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the response shape — markdown, then permanent ID, then a plain-text and BibTeX citation block — which matters because there is no output schema. It does not say what happens for a missing or non-public slug, leaving the failure mode implied.
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 with the identifier rule front-loaded and the sections behavior trailing as an optional note. Dense but every clause carries information; the only mild friction is the compressed 'Cite this block' phrasing.
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?
With no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting on return values and covers both parameters, which is enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is error/not-found behavior for a tool that only reads public notes.
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%, so the description must carry both parameters, and it largely does: slug accepts a current slug, an old slug, or a permanent ID, and sections takes heading or bold-label names with [] as a discovery sentinel. Only the schema-level limits (81-char slug, 10-item cap, matching behavior) are left undocumented.
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') and enumerates the accepted identifier forms (slug, old slug, permanent ID with the iil:note: prefix). It also names list_notes as the source of slugs, which lets an agent place it relative to a sibling without opening any schema.
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?
Clear context for when to use it: after list_notes, or when holding an old slug or permanent ID. It also gives the concrete trick of passing [] to sections to discover available sections. It stops short of contrasting with search_notes or ask, so the routing guidance is good but not exhaustive.
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.