Retrieve a note by its key. This tool reads and returns the content of a previously saved note.
Read a note by key.
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": {
"key": "<key>"
},
"name": "note_get"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'read', implying a non-destructive operation, but does not explain what happens on missing key, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
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 extremely concise (5 words) and front-loaded with the core action. While no words are wasted, it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.
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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose. However, it lacks completeness regarding return behavior, error states, and any context about the note system.
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?
The single parameter 'key' is named and referenced in the description ('by key'), but the description does not explain what the key represents (e.g., UUID, title) or add any value beyond the schema's basic type and length constraints.
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's action ('read') and resource ('note'), and explicitly mentions the identifier ('key'). This differentiates it from siblings like note_delete and note_list, though it lacks scope information.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like note_list or note_set. There are no examples, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.