Used only by the Cobrain app window (not by the model): returns one note rendered as HTML, with its title, last update, author and link. Read-only. To read a note in the chat, use read_file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ws | Yes | Brain id, as listed by open_brain | |
| path | Yes | Note path inside that brain, e.g. clients/acme/_about.md |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / path / descriptionAdded value: +"Note path inside that brain, e.g. clients/acme/_about.md"Input schema / properties / ws / descriptionAdded value: +"Brain id, as listed by open_brain"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the intended caller restriction and the fact that output is HTML with author/timestamp/link fields. It doesn't mention error behavior or auth requirements, but the added value over annotations is clear.
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?
Three compact sentences with zero waste; the caller restriction is front-loaded before the return details and the alternative-tool pointer. Every clause conveys distinct 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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, caller scope, the alternative tool, and the shape of the returned data. Nothing an agent needs in order to call or avoid it is missing.
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 100% (both 'ws' and 'path' are documented with format examples), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or constraints, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 and resource ('returns one note rendered as HTML') plus the metadata returned (title, last update, author, link). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling read_file, so an agent can separate the two without opening either 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?
Explicitly scopes the caller ('Used only by the Cobrain app window (not by the model)') and names the alternative plus the condition that selects it ('To read a note in the chat, use read_file'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.
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.