Skip to main content
Glama

SUNAGO Matrix

by com.sunago-matrix

Get notes on a record

notes_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the notes on a lead, deal, contact or task, newest first, with the author's name and every colleague tagged in each note resolved to a name. Mention markup in the content looks like @Full Name; the plain_content field has it flattened to @Full Name for reading. Max limit 200 - the response carries pagination.total and has_more.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax 200.
offsetNoRow offset. This tool has no cursor - page with offset.
entity_idYesThe lead, deal, contact or task the notes hang off.
entity_typeYesWhich kind of record the note hangs off.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
metaNo
notesYes
warningNoPresent only when the page is truncated.
paginationYes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description need not re-state safety. It adds useful behavioral details beyond the schema: newest-first ordering, mention markup format, plain_content flattening, and pagination fields ('pagination.total' and 'has_more').

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, each earning its place: scope and ordering, mention formatting behavior, and pagination limits. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description covers the remaining practical concerns: sorting, markup interpretation, and pagination behavior. Nothing essential to correctly invoke the tool is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds context about the response and ordering rather than deeper parameter semantics, keeping this at the baseline 3.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List') plus a precise resource ('notes on a lead, deal, contact or task') and clarifies ordering ('newest first'). It is clearly distinct from the sibling notes_create/notes_update/notes_delete tools and from other getters that target different record types.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description makes the intended use obvious: retrieve notes attached to supported entity types. It gives clear context and scoping, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or mention alternatives, which is acceptable because there is no competing note-retrieval sibling.

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

All SUNAGO Matrix toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern and the descriptions are unusually precise about boundaries. A few near-overlaps remain: projects_get_finance vs projects_get_financials, and notes_create vs crm_log_activity on a deal are both plausible for recording a note on a deal.

Naming Consistency4/5

The domain_prefix_action convention is consistent across nearly all tools, e.g. crm_create_lead, projects_update_risk, timelog_approve_time. Deviations include standalone list_trash, meta tools like whoami/tool_search/tool_invoke, and the confusing projects_get_finance/projects_get_financials pair.

Tool Count1/5

With 105 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ threshold defined as an extreme mismatch. Even for a full ERP/CRM suite, the fine-grained split—39 project tools alone—creates a massive tool-selection surface that is hard for an agent to navigate reliably.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers CRM, projects, tasks, time/expenses, HR, notes, notifications, contracts, and reporting with create/read/update/delete for most primary entities. Minor gaps exist: crm_log_activity has no read-back path, contracts lack delete/restore, and proposals are intentionally read-only, but agents can work around these.

Resources