get_frontmatterRetrieve the YAML frontmatter (tags, metadata) for a specific note using its note ID, enabling access to structured note attributes.
A note's YAML frontmatter (tags, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the resource (frontmatter) and gives no indication of side effects, read-only nature, return format, or error behavior. This is a critical gap for a tool that is presumably a read operation.
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 extremely brief, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is a single incomplete sentence that fails to convey essential information. While front-loaded, it does not earn its place because it says almost nothing useful.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema), the description is still incomplete. It does not state that the tool returns frontmatter, nor does it clarify what the 'etc.' means. An agent would struggle to know what the tool actually does beyond inference from the title and siblings.
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%, and the description does not mention the sole parameter (note_id). While the parameter name is self-explanatory as an identifier, the description adds no context about the parameter's role or expected format, leaving the agent to rely solely on the 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?
The description is a noun phrase ('A note's YAML frontmatter') that does not explicitly state the action of 'getting' or 'retrieving'. It names the resource but lacks a verb, making the tool's purpose ambiguous. The title 'Get Frontmatter' provides some clarity, but the description itself is a fragment.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_frontmatter or read_note. The description does not mention any context, preconditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.