get_documentRead SiYuan note content as Markdown by fetching the document with its ID or a path like /Notes/My doc.
Read a document as Markdown. Accepts a document ID or a human-readable path such as /Notes/My doc. This is the primary way to read note content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | Yes | Document ID, or a path like `/Notes/My doc`. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return format (Markdown) and accepted identifier forms. It does not describe failure behavior for an unknown ID/path, permission requirements, or whether content is truncated for large documents.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return type, then the argument format, then the role. No filler or redundant clauses.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (Markdown) and how to identify the document, which is most of what an agent needs. Error/edge-case behavior on invalid identifiers is the only notable omission.
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 single 'doc' parameter already documents both the ID and the `/Notes/My doc` path form, so the description largely restates it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting; the description adds no extra format or escaping detail.
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 and resource ('Read a document as Markdown') and states the return format and identity that content reading is its role ('primary way to read note content'). It implies a contrast with get_block but never names an alternative sibling, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
Saying it is 'the primary way to read note content' implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of get_block, search_notes, or list_documents as alternatives. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.