Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wiznote-mcp

wiznote-mcp

by 735140144
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

wiz_get_note

Retrieve a note's metadata and HTML body by providing its document GUID. Enables accessing full note content from a WizNote server.

Instructions

Read note metadata and HTML body.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "docGuid": "<docGuid>"
    },
    "name": "wiz_get_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kbGuidNo
docGuidYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions that the tool reads data. It does not confirm safe/read-only behavior, idempotency, or any side effects. The term 'read' weakly implies non-destructiveness, but lacks explicit authorization or error-context disclosure.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

While the description is short, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. It does not earn its place as the sole explanatory text for a two-parameter tool; essential details are omitted.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should hint at return structure or context like metadata fields. It also fails to differentiate retrieval of a single note from listing/searching, and omits parameter explanations. Overall, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It fails to mention either 'docGuid' or 'kbGuid', leaving their roles completely undocumented. The agent cannot infer what each parameter represents or how to use them correctly.

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 action ('Read') and the resource ('note metadata and HTML body'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that create, list, search, or update notes. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wiz_search_notes or wiz_list_notes. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage without any contextual help.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools