Retrieve up to 50 notes by ID in metadata, excerpt, or full Markdown views, deferring remaining IDs when a byte budget is reached; protected notes remain inaccessible.
Read up to 50 notes with per-note results. Choose metadata, excerpt, or full Markdown; a byte budget defers remaining IDs for another call. Protected notes remain inaccessible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view | No | full | |
| noteIds | Yes | ||
| maxBytes | No | ||
| excerptLength | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavior beyond them: batch size, per-note results, byte-budget deferral of remaining IDs, and protected-note inaccessibility. It could say more about partial results or error behavior, but it meaningfully improves transparency.
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 no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the view choice, byte-budget behavior, and protected-note caveat.
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 read-only batch tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description gives enough operational context to call it correctly. The main omission is excerptLength semantics and some return-shape detail, but the overall behavior is adequately covered.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the view choices and the maxBytes deferral behavior, and 'up to 50 notes' maps to noteIds limits, but excerptLength is not addressed at all and noteIds/defaults are not explicitly described.
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 ('Read ... notes') and adds batch scope ('up to 50 notes with per-note results'), which distinguishes it from the single-note sibling get_note. It does not explicitly name get_note or search_notes as alternatives, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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 for fetching multiple known note IDs and explains the view and byte-budget options, but it does not explicitly say when to use get_notes instead of get_note or search_notes. The only exclusion is that protected notes remain inaccessible.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.