Read a bounded line range of an imported school note by its ID and cite it with its snapshot date.
Read a bounded line range of an imported note using its ID, not a filesystem path. Preserve the snapshot date when citing it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| noteId | Yes | ID returned by list_notes/search_notes. | |
| lineCount | No | Number of lines to read, default 80. | |
| startLine | No | First 1-based line. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the note is an imported snapshot (not live content) and the snapshot date should be preserved when citing. It does not cover what happens when the requested range exceeds the note length or how truncated results surface.
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?
Two compact sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the ID-vs-path disambiguation immediately following. The snapshot-citation advice is a second concern but is short enough not to dilute the lead.
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 full annotation coverage, a 100%-documented schema, and no output schema, the description only needs to fill interpretive gaps. It does so for identifier semantics and snapshot provenance, though it leaves return/truncation behavior unstated.
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%, so noteId, lineCount, and startLine are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description reinforces that noteId is an opaque ID rather than a path and that reads are line-bounded, but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.
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 ('read') and resource ('note') with the scope of the operation ('bounded line range') and clarifies the identifier type ('using its ID, not a filesystem path'). It partially differentiates from siblings like read_topic/read_attachment by calling the resource an 'imported note', though it does not name those 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 description implies usage (you must have a note ID, not a path) but never states when to choose this over read_topic, read_attachment, or view_page, nor when not to use it. The retrieval routing is only discoverable through the schema note that noteId comes from list_notes/search_notes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.