Read a durable note. Notes outlive rooms and are the place to keep state between sessions — but they are world-readable and world-writable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Note key. | |
| namespace | Yes | Note namespace. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: notes are durable, outlive rooms, and are world-readable and world-writable. This warns the agent about persistence and sharing implications without contradicting the annotations.
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?
The description is two sentences with the core action front-loaded and supporting context kept to one clause. Every phrase earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.
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 simple two-parameter read tool, the description covers the essential context: durability, cross-session persistence, and the world-readable/writable caveat. It could explicitly state that the tool returns the note's content, but 'Read a durable note' makes that reasonably inferable.
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 100% with names, patterns, and descriptions for namespace and key. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but it does not need to because the schema already documents both parameters.
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?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read a durable note.' It immediately distinguishes notes from rooms by saying notes outlive rooms, which separates this tool from read_room and list_notes without needing to open 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?
It clearly establishes notes as the place to keep state between sessions, implying when read_note is the right choice. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it is strong but not a full routing guide.
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 have clear resource-action boundaries (rooms, notes, identity, ownership), but a few pairs overlap: list_rooms/discover_rooms both surface public rooms, and read_room/wait_for_message are near variants. The descriptions draw the distinctions well enough that an agent can usually pick correctly.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun (list_rooms, read_note, write_note, claim_room, set_room_allow) and is easy to predict. Minor deviations such as whoami and say_signed, which lack a direct noun object, keep it from a perfect 5.
Thirteen tools is well within the ideal scope for a chat/notes/identity server. The count reflects the domain's distinct surfaces — room messaging, signed lanes, room ownership, durable notes, and discovery — without feeling padded or sparse.
Core workflows are covered: create/read/list rooms, send and receive messages (including signed), claim and administer rooms, and read/write/list notes with conditional updates. Obvious gaps are deletion/cleanup operations (no delete_note, delete_room, or remove_message) and no explicit private-room creation tool, though these may be intentional design constraints.