read_noteRetrieve a specific note by its unique ID from a markdown vault wiki. Get the full note content for reading or processing.
Read a note by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}New value: +truev0.1.0Does 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. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation and provides some transparency, but it does not disclose behavior for missing IDs, access errors, or other edge cases.
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 short sentence with no filler or redundant detail. It front-loads the core intent and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
For a single-parameter read operation with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, given the large set of sibling tools, some additional context about how read_note differs from read_notes, list_notes, or search_notes would improve completeness.
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%, but the description only contributes 'by id', which largely restates the existing note_id property name. It does not provide additional meaning about the expected format, source, or semantics of the ID beyond what the schema already implies.
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 a specific action ('Read') applied to a specific resource ('a note') and identifies the lookup mechanism ('by id'). It is easy to understand, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like read_notes or list_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?
The phrase 'by id' implies this tool is appropriate when the agent already has a note_id, providing a basic usage context. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative sibling tool to choose for other retrieval needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.