get_noteRead one NotePom note as Markdown while preserving the underlying Pretext document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| noteId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| folderId | Yes | ||
| geometry | Yes | ||
| markdown | Yes | ||
| updatedAt | Yes | ||
| parentNoteId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds that the operation returns Markdown and preserves the underlying Pretext document, which is a meaningful behavioral guarantee beyond the annotations. No contradiction.
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?
One efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action, with no filler or repetition. Every phrase adds 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?
For a single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers core behavior, but it lacks context for distinguishing a NotePom note from collaboration notes or files, and the 'Pretext document' relationship is unexplained.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain what noteId should refer to or how to obtain it; it only implies a NotePom note. The parameter name and length constraints carry most of the meaning.
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', target resource 'one NotePom note', and output format Markdown, with distinctive mention of preserving the underlying Pretext document. It is clear enough to be told apart from read_file or get_collaboration_note, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
No guidance on when to choose this over siblings like get_collaboration_note or read_file, and no prerequisites or context are given. The only implicit signal is the function name, so an agent has no explicit selection criteria.
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.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and lifecycle pairs like publish_note_listing vs publish_media_listing or get_note vs get_collaboration_note are separated by clear wording. A few near-pairs such as move_file vs move_workspace_item and trash_file vs trash_workspace_item could still cause an agent to pick the wrong tool without careful reading.
All 38 tools follow one consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern with no camelCase or mixed conventions. Even less common verbs like upsert, trash, purge, and validate are applied uniformly, making the tool set predictable.
38 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and makes the overall surface feel heavy for tool selection. The number is defensible given the broad workspace, collaboration, and marketplace scope, but as a single MCP server it is not especially well-scoped.
The tool set covers workspace content lifecycle, collaboration, public pages, marketplace listings, Stripe seller flow, and agent registration without major dead ends. Minor gaps exist, such as no permanent delete outside of the trash flow and no direct collaboration-note deletion, but core workflows are supported.