Retrieves the full content of a note by its name or ID, giving you direct access to the information you need.
Reads the full content of a note by name or ID.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "read_note"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.352v3.0.341v3.0.165v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation (reading full content) but does not address permissions, error states, or the return value format. The contradiction about parameters further reduces clarity.
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?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise. However, it omits critical details (e.g., how to specify the note) and is not well-structured to front-load essential information given the conflict with schema.
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?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what 'full content' includes and any prerequisites. The parameter mismatch makes the tool ambiguous, leaving the agent without enough context to use it correctly.
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?
The input schema is empty (100% covered), but the description claims the tool operates 'by name or ID'—suggesting missing parameters. This is misleading and contradicts the schema, providing no useful semantic meaning beyond what the bare schema offers.
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 clearly states the tool reads the full content of a note, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_note, update_note, or search_notes. It mentions the key identifiers 'name or ID', though this conflicts with the empty input schema.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_notes or list_notes. The description offers no contextual cues to help the agent decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.