Retrieve the full Markdown content of a note from the lazymark notes folder by providing its path or ID, so you can view or reuse the note.
Reads the Markdown content of a note in the notes folder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path of the .md note: absolute or relative to the notes folder (the `id` that list_notes and create_note return works as is). It must be inside it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.5Input schema / properties / path / descriptionPrevious value: -"Ruta de la nota .md: absoluta o relativa a la carpeta de notas (el `id` que devuelven list_notes y create_note sirve tal cual). Debe quedar dentro de ella."New value: +"Path of the .md note: absolute or relative to the notes folder (the `id` that list_notes and create_note return works as is). It must be inside it."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the read-only nature of the operation and what is returned (Markdown content of a note scoped to the notes folder), but says nothing about behavior for missing paths, paths outside the folder, or large notes.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for the tool's edge cases.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully states that the return is the note's Markdown content, which compensates somewhat. However, with no annotations and no error/edge-case behavior described, it is only minimally complete for an agent invoking it.
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 100% and the schema description for 'path' already explains absolute/relative resolution, the notes-folder constraint, and that list_notes/create_note ids work as-is. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb (reads), resource (a note in the notes folder), and content type (Markdown). It is clearly separable from list_notes, search_notes and create_note, though it never names them explicitly.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as search_notes for content discovery or list_notes for enumeration. Usage is only weakly implied by the verb 'reads'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.