Local MCP

Read Note

read_note

Read-only

Reads the full content of a note by name or ID.

CHECK body_format BEFORE WRITING THE BODY BACK. "markdown" means the note's formatting (headings, bold/italic, bullet/numbered lists, checkboxes, links, monospaced) came through as Markdown and update_note takes it back as-is — literal *, backticks and brackets arrive backslash-escaped so they survive the round trip. "plain_text" means the formatting could NOT be recovered and body is flat text: writing it back REPLACES the note's structure with flat text, so edit the note by other means (or ask the user) instead of rewriting the whole body.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note_id`	No	Id of the note, from list_notes or search_notes. Use this or note_name.
`note_name`	No	Title of the note, when you do not have its id. Use this or note_id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No
`body`	No
`name`	No
`folder`	No
`modified`	No
`body_format`	No	What `body` actually is. "markdown": the note's formatting survived and update_note accepts this body back unchanged. "plain_text": the formatting could not be recovered — writing this body back flattens the note.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 30, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / note_id / description

Added value: +"Id of the note, from list_notes or search_notes. Use this or note_name."

addedInput schema / properties / note_name / description

Added value: +"Title of the note, when you do not have its id. Use this or note_id."

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 29, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / note_id / description

Removed value: -"Id of the note, from list_notes or search_notes. Use this or note_name."

removedInput schema / properties / note_name / description

Removed value: -"Title of the note, when you do not have its id. Use this or note_id."

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 20, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / note_id / description

Added value: +"Id of the note, from list_notes or search_notes. Use this or note_name."

addedInput schema / properties / note_name / description

Added value: +"Title of the note, when you do not have its id. Use this or note_id."

Changed1 schema field changedAug 26, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / body_format

Added value: +{
+  "description": "What `body` actually is. \"markdown\": the note's formatting survived and update_note accepts this body back unchanged. \"plain_text\": the formatting could not be recovered — writing this body back flattens the note.",
+  "enum": [
+    "markdown",
+    "plain_text"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedJun 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the body_format field: it explains the difference between 'markdown' and 'plain_text' and the consequences for update_note, including the warning that writing back plain_text replaces the note's structure. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent of a critical round-trip behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than necessary for a simple read tool, with a substantial portion dedicated to body_format and update_note guidance. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the rest is verbose and could be more concise. The CHECK statement is attention-grabbing but the overall structure is somewhat sprawling.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the core read operation and the important body_format nuance, but it lacks explicit clarification on parameter requirements (e.g., at least one of note_id/note_name must be provided) and error cases (e.g., what happens if multiple notes share a name). The output schema likely defines the return structure, but the description could be more complete for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (note_id and note_name) with usage notes, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description only repeats 'by name or ID' without adding new meaning or clarifying the mutual exclusivity or fallback behavior. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, the description adds no additional semantic value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Reads the full content of a note by name or ID.' It distinguishes this tool from create_note, update_note, delete_note, list_notes, and search_notes by specifying the full content retrieval. The method of lookup (by name or ID) is also explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions update_note but only in the context of writing the body back, not as a selection criterion. There is no statement like 'use this instead of list_notes when you need the full content' or 'use search_notes if you don't have the ID.' The reader must infer usage from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Local MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.