read_noteRetrieve a markdown note from your vault by its unique ID. Use this to access stored wiki content when your AI agent needs the full text of a specific note.
Read a note by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the note is returned whole or paginated, what happens on missing/invalid id, or any permission requirements. 'Read' implies non-mutating, but nothing is confirmed.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.
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?
With an output schema present, return format needn't be described. However, for a retrieval tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description is minimally adequate—it should at least clarify id format or error 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?
The single parameter note_id has no description in the schema (0% coverage), but the description's phrase 'by id' indicates the required identifier. Baseline for a short schema is limited, and it adds only minimal meaning beyond the parameter name.
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 (read) and resource (note), plus the lookup key. It distinguishes from create/update/delete/move siblings by implication, but does not explicitly differentiate from search_notes, which also retrieves notes.
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 on when to use this versus search_notes or the other note tools. An agent must infer that this is for direct retrieval by known id, but nothing is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.