Datacron

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get a note

get_note

Read-only

Retrieve the full context of a note or indexed chunk by ULID, chunk_id, or path. Fetch complete bodies, heading outlines, or section spans to answer beyond search snippets.

Instructions

Fetch the full context behind a search hit before answering from a snippet alone. Fetch a single note by its ULID, indexed chunk_id, or vault-relative path. chunk_id inputs return format='chunk' with the sandbox-wrapped chunk body; a parent-hash mismatch returns an explicit stale-chunk error. Chunk reads ignore offset/limit. For note inputs, format='full' returns the sandbox-wrapped body and offset/limit page large notes by character range; format='map' returns the heading outline only (cheap to scan before requesting full content). heading_path selects exact rendered heading ancestry including its subtree; repeated paths require a 1-based heading_occurrence. Section reads require full format and a note input, include source line spans and the original note hash, and paginate relative to the redacted section.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`limit`	No
`format`	No	full
`offset`	No
`id_or_path`	Yes
`heading_path`	No
`heading_occurrence`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`tags`	No
`title`	No
`format`	No
`offset`	No
`aliases`	No
`content`	No
`created`	No
`note_id`	No
`section`	No
`updated`	No
`chunk_id`	No
`headings`	No
`line_end`	No
`rel_path`	No
`truncated`	No
`line_start`	No
`chunk_count`	No
`frontmatter`	No
`header_path`	No
`next_offset`	No
`total_chars`	No
`content_hash`	No
`limit_applied`	No
`next_chunk_id`	No
`prev_chunk_id`	No
`returned_chars`	No
`estimated_tokens`	No
`note_content_hash`	No
`chunk_content_hash`	No
`content_hash_contract`	No
`returned_estimated_tokens`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.1.10Sep 13, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / heading_occurrence

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Heading Occurrence"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / heading_path

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Heading Path"
+}

addedOutput schema / $defs / NoteSectionOutput

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Selected heading subtree; physical line bounds are inclusive and 1-based.",
+  "properties": {
+    "heading_occurrence": {
+      "title": "Heading Occurrence",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "heading_path": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "title": "Heading Path",
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "line_end": {
+      "title": "Line End",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "line_start": {
+      "title": "Line Start",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "matching_headings": {
+      "title": "Matching Headings",
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "heading_path",
+    "heading_occurrence",
+    "matching_headings",
+    "line_start",
+    "line_end"
+  ],
+  "title": "NoteSectionOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / section

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "$ref": "#/$defs/NoteSectionOutput"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With annotations already declaring readOnly/no-destruction, the description goes well beyond them: chunk reads ignore offset/limit, a parent-hash mismatch yields an explicit stale-chunk error, section reads require full format and carry source line spans plus the original note hash, and pagination is relative to the redacted section. This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and the snippet-vs-full rationale are front-loaded, and most clauses carry distinct operational information rather than filler. The middle section is dense and clause-heavy, but little of it is genuinely redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 6-parameter fetch tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers input forms, format-selection trade-offs, edge-case errors, and format-specific constraints. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it explains the format enum (full/map/chunk), the offset/limit character-range paging, heading_path ancestry plus subtree, and the 1-based heading_occurrence needed for repeated paths. limit's unit of measure is only implied via the offset/limit pairing rather than stated outright, keeping it from a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening states a specific verb and resource plus the three accepted identifier forms (ULID, indexed chunk_id, vault-relative path), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings such as get_note_history or list_notes, so differentiation is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Fetch the full context behind a search hit before answering from a snippet alone" gives a clear context for use, and the format='map' note ('cheap to scan before requesting full content') offers a concrete workflow trigger. No sibling tool is named as an alternative and there is no explicit when-not-to-use, so it falls just short of 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.