Retrieve an Apple Note's metadata and bounded plain text or HTML by ID; locked notes return metadata only. Read-only access for inspecting note content safely.
Read-only: get note metadata and bounded plain text or HTML. Locked notes return metadata only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | text | |
| noteId | Yes | ||
| maxChars | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description's value-add is the edge-case behavior: locked notes return metadata only, and the returned body is 'bounded' rather than full. That is genuine disclosure beyond the structured metadata, though it omits what happens for a missing or unauthorized noteId.
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 sentences, zero filler, and the read-only nature plus the locked-note caveat are front-loaded. Nothing redundant with the schema or annotations.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description correctly characterizes the return ('metadata and bounded plain text or HTML') and flags the locked-note partial-return case. It is nearly complete for a simple getter, missing only failure/not-found behavior.
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 the parameter burden. It clarifies that 'format' selects plain text vs HTML and that output is bounded (implying maxChars), but says nothing about noteId format/validity or the maxChars ceiling (200000). Partial compensation for an undocumented 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 ('get') and resource ('note') plus what is returned ('metadata and bounded plain text or HTML'), which cleanly separates a single-note fetch from the list/search siblings. It never names an alternative explicitly, so it stops short of the top mark.
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: an agent infers it should call this when it already has a noteId rather than browsing with apple_notes_list or apple_notes_search. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or routing to a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.