Read one public note by slug (from list_notes). Returns the note's markdown. 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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is additive — which it does by disclosing that notes are public, that markdown is returned, and the non-obvious probing behavior of passing [] to enumerate available sections. It stops short of describing error behavior for a bad slug.
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, zero filler, front-loaded with the core verb+resource before the optional-sections detail. Every clause carries new information.
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 correctly supplies the return value ('the note's markdown'), and it fully covers both parameters including an edge case. Minor omission: nothing about failure modes for an unknown or non-public slug.
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 the load, and it does: slug's origin and sections' meaning as 'heading or bold-label names' are both explained, plus the special empty-array semantics that the schema cannot express. It omits the length limits on slug, but those are visible in 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 (Read), resource (one public note), and lookup key (by slug), immediately distinguishing it from list_notes and search_notes. Also declares the return artifact ('the note's markdown'), so the agent knows exactly what this tool produces.
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?
Routes the agent to the source of the slug ('from list_notes'), which is genuine usage guidance for a lookup tool. It does not explicitly contrast against search_notes or explain when-not to use it, but the single-item-by-slug scope makes the alternative obvious.
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.