Skip to main content
Glama

ainote

by io.github.seunghan91

graph_read

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read knowledge-graph nodes. action: get | list (consolidated surface — same handlers as the legacy tools)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aliasNo[get]
limitNo[list]
actionYeswhich operation to run
cursorNo[list] Opaque cursor (created_at ISO + id) from previous page's next_cursor
node_idNo[get]
device_idNo[get] Optional calling device id for audit attribution. The X-Ainote-Device-Id header is the canonical source; this argument is the backwards-compatible fallback for clients that predate the header. If both are sent and disagree, the request is rejected (DEVICE_MISMATCH). [list] Optional calling device id for audit attribution. The X-Ainote-Device-Id header is the canonical source; this argument is the backwards-compatible fallback for clients that predate the header. If both are sent and disagree, the request is rejected (DEVICE_MISMATCH).
node_typeNo[get] [list]
updated_since_hlcNo[list]

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / device_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "[get] Optional calling device id for audit attribution. The X-Ainote-Device-Id header is the canonical source; this argument is the backwards-compatible fallback for clients that predate the header. If both are sent and disagree, the request is rejected (DEVICE_MISMATCH). [list] Optional calling device id for audit attribution. The X-Ainote-Device-Id header is the canonical source; this argument is the backwards-compatible fallback for clients that predate the header. If both are sent and disagree, the request is rejected (DEVICE_MISMATCH).",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description only mentions 'consolidated surface' and 'same handlers as legacy tools', which gives no operational behavior details (e.g., pagination, audit attribution, error semantics). It adds minimal value over 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, focused sentence. It front-loads the purpose and includes the key discriminator (action). No fluff.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description omits critical context: what a get returns vs list, pagination behavior, and the meaning of the consolidated surface. The schema covers parameters but not the overall tool semantics.

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 fully describes each parameter, so baseline is 3. The description repeats 'action: get | list' which is already in the schema, and does not add any new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the verb 'Read' and resource 'knowledge-graph nodes', and explicitly enumerates the supported actions (get/list) as a consolidated surface. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like graph_write and graph_soft_delete.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use get vs list, nor does it reference alternatives (e.g., graph_write for mutations). The only usage hint is the action enum in the schema, not the description.

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

All ainote 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools clearly target distinct resources (tasks, docs, graph, sync, env_sync, handoffs, judgments, projects, vault). A few pairs could confuse, like sync_push vs vault_sync (which has a push action) and env_sync_write vs env_sync_txn_push, but descriptions mostly clarify boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are predominantly snake_case with a noun_verb pattern (e.g., sync_push, task_write), but there are notable inconsistencies: plural/singular mismatches (dev_docs_read vs dev_doc_write, tasks_read vs task_write), verb-first names (list_papers, get_setup_guide, judgment_submit), and a dotted sub-namespace (env_sync.secret_pull) mixed with flat names (env_sync_txn_push).

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is a large surface for a personal note/sync server. While it spans many domains (auth, tasks, docs, sync, env_sync, graph, etc.), the sheer number feels heavy and likely overwhelms agents with too many choices, especially when several tools are consolidated sub-action surfaces.

Completeness3/5

Most domains have reasonable CRUD coverage (tasks, dev docs, graph, sync, env_sync, vault). However, noticeable gaps exist: memory has no write tool (only read), papers only support listing (no create/update/delete), assumptions have write but no dedicated read or delete, and judgment is effectively submit-and-list only.

Resources