Retrieve the full body of a single note by relative path from the local Markdown notes directory, with automatic truncation at 20,000 characters for safe output.
读取单篇笔记的完整正文。path 必须是相对笔记根目录的路径（如 daily/2026-10-01.md），超过 20000 字符会截断并在末尾标注。绝对路径、.. 和指向根目录外的符号链接都会被拒绝。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
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 discloses real behavior: truncation at 20000 characters with a marker appended at the end, and rejection of absolute paths, '..' and out-of-root symlinks. It omits what happens for a missing path or an unreadable file, so the error behavior is still undisclosed.
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 sentences: the purpose first, then the path contract, then the safety rules. Each sentence adds information the agent cannot get from the schema or annotations, so there is no waste.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, path format, size limits and path safety. Only error behavior for nonexistent or unreadable notes is missing, which is a minor gap.
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% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does: it mandates a path relative to the notes root, gives a concrete example (daily/2026-10-01.md), and enumerates the path forms that will be rejected.
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: '读取单篇笔记的完整正文' (read the full body of a single note). This clearly separates it from list/search siblings by emphasizing a single note and its full content, though it does not name the alternatives 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?
The phrase '单篇笔记' implies this is the tool to use when you know which note you want, versus search_notes or list_recent. However, the description never states when to prefer this tool over those siblings, nor what to do first if the path is unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.