Retrieve the full text of one note by note_id so an AI assistant can read stored note contents from the persistent SQLite notebook.
Return the full text of one note.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| tags | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| created_at | Yes | ||
| updated_at | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the full text (not a summary) is returned, which is modest added value; it says nothing about what happens for a missing or unauthorized note_id.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding; appropriately sized, though its terseness is achieved partly by omitting necessary detail.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, for a tool whose only parameter is undocumented in the schema, the description should at minimum explain how to source the note_id; that gap leaves it only minimally complete.
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 0% — note_id has no description in the schema — so the description must compensate and does not. It never clarifies that note_id is a required integer identifier or how an agent should obtain one (e.g., via search_notes).
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: 'Return the full text of one note.' The singular 'one note' implicitly contrasts with the sibling search_notes, but no sibling is named, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like search_notes for finding notes or list_tags. The agent gets no routing signal beyond the bare purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.