PerMark

read_note

Read-only

Retrieve the text of a shared Markdown note by name from PerMark so AI agents can review or reference existing content.

Instructions

Text of one shared note, by the note name list_notes gives.

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": {
      "note": "<note>"
    },
    "name": "read_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	Yes	Note name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.7.0Oct 23, 2026

removedInput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

changedInput schema / properties / note / description

Previous value: -"The note's name, exactly as `list_notes` gives it in `note` (for example `2026-10-15 1432.md`)."New value: +"Note name."

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds useful context beyond them: the return value is text content, and the scope is limited to shared notes, which explains why some notes may not be retrievable.

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?

A single compact clause, front-loaded with the return value and followed by the identifier source. Nothing extraneous.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how to obtain the argument. Only edge behavior (missing or unshared note) is left implicit, which is minor here.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a single 'note' parameter, so baseline is 3. The description earns an increment by telling the agent where the identifier comes from (list_notes), which the schema's bare 'Note name.' does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States the resource and scope precisely: the text of ONE SHARED note, addressed by name. The verb is elided ("Text of one shared note"), and it doesn't explicitly contrast with the generic `read` sibling, but the specificity of 'one shared note' makes its purpose distinguishable from list_notes and read.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies a workflow by saying the `note` value is "the name list_notes gives", which signals list_notes must be called first. It stops short of saying when to use this over `read` or `get_context`, or what to do when a note isn't shared.

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

Deploy Server