Retrieve a specific note by its ID from Joplin to access its content and data for reading or processing.
Get a specific note by ID.
Args:
note_id: ID of the note to retrieve
Returns:
Dictionary containing the note data
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a note by ID but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the note doesn't exist), authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it's read-only (implied but not confirmed). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.
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 well-structured and concise, using clear sections for 'Args' and 'Returns.' It avoids unnecessary details, though the 'Returns' section could be more specific (e.g., mentioning fields like title or content). Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly front-loaded, as the core purpose is stated upfront.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and parameter but lacks details on behavior, error handling, and output structure. Without annotations or an output schema, users must infer return values from the vague 'Dictionary containing the note data,' which is insufficient for reliable use.
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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that 'note_id' is the 'ID of the note to retrieve,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose but doesn't provide format details (e.g., UUID, numeric) or constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a baseline score—it compensates slightly but not fully for the lack of schema documentation.
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 purpose: 'Get a specific note by ID.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('note'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'search_notes' (which likely retrieves multiple notes based on criteria), so it falls short of a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'search_notes' for retrieving multiple notes or 'create_note'/'update_note' for write operations. Without this context, users might struggle to choose the right tool in scenarios requiring note retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.