Retrieve the full content of a specific note from your personal knowledge vault using its relative path. Use this to view saved decisions, ideas, or references.
Read a specific note by its relative path within the vault.
Args: path: Relative path from vault root, e.g. 'decisions/my-decision.md'
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the path-format context and implies a read-only fetch, but discloses nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid path, encoding of content, or size limits. For a simple read tool that is a modest but real gap.
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?
Front-loaded single sentence with the purpose, followed by a compact parameter note. The 'Args:' block is slightly boilerplate for a one-parameter tool but does not pad the text meaningfully.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a tool in a 45-sibling namespace, the description neither routes the agent away from search_notes/read_note_as_image nor covers failure modes, leaving the selection context thin.
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% — the only parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by defining the parameter as a path relative to vault root and giving a concrete example ('decisions/my-decision.md'), which is the key ambiguity an agent would otherwise hit.
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 states a specific verb (read) and resource (a specific note), plus the scoping key (relative path within the vault). It is clear, but it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as search_notes (when the path is unknown) or read_note_as_image, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: the mention of 'relative path' quietly signals that you must already know the path. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to search_notes as the alternative when 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.