read_noteRead a note by slug or relative markdown path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Full note path starting with 'personal_vault/' (e.g. 'personal_vault/projects/my-project/my-findings.md'). Use this OR slug. | |
| slug | No | Note slug (short identifier from search results, e.g. 'my-findings'). Use this OR path, not both. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'read' implies a non-mutating operation, which provides a basic safety signal. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, prerequisites, or error conditions beyond what 'read' inherently suggests. The output schema helps clarify return values.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word earns its place, and it efficiently communicates the core functionality.
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 relatively simple read tool with two well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the purpose and acceptable input forms. It slightly lacks clarification about how this differs from read_raw_note, but that is a minor gap given the overall context.
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 both parameters (path and slug) having detailed descriptions directly in the input schema. The tool description's mention of 'relative markdown path' adds slight context but is actually less precise than the schema's 'Full note path starting with personal_vault/'. Thus, the description contributes minimal additional parametric 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?
The description clearly states the tool reads a note and specifies two identification methods (slug or path). It is more specific than just 'read note', but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like read_raw_note or search_and_read_top.
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?
The description implies usage when you have a slug or relative path, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as read_raw_note. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool mentions are given.
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, distinct purposes, but there are overlapping areas such as search_akashic vs search_notes vs search_and_read_top, and confirm_note/dispute_note/review_note which serve related but different review functions. Descriptions are detailed enough to reduce ambiguity, though some boundary cases require careful reading.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_notes, create_folder, delete_note, move_note). Even debug tools and compound names like search_and_read_top maintain the convention. The only exception is whoami, which is a common standalone verb and does not break the overall pattern.
With 35 tools, the server has a large surface area that could overwhelm agents. The tool count exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' in the rubric, even though the broad domain (notes, folders, search, reviews, publication workflow, debugging) partially justifies the number. The set feels heavy and could benefit from consolidation.
The toolset provides thorough coverage of the knowledge management lifecycle: note CRUD (upsert/read/delete/move), folder management, multiple search modes, review/confirmation/dispute mechanisms, publication workflow, stale note handling, image upload, and debugging utilities. There are no obvious dead ends; every major operation needed to manage and publish notes is represented.