read_notesRetrieve multiple notes in a single request. Missing note IDs are reported individually without interrupting the batch read.
Read several notes at once; missing ids are reported, not fatal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note_ids | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that missing ids are reported but not fatal, which is a key non-obvious behavior. It also implies read-only operation. However, it does not cover other error scenarios or auth requirements, but for a simple read tool this is sufficient.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. It states the purpose and a critical behavioral note immediately, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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 presence of an output schema, return values do not need to be described. The description covers the core purpose and the key edge case (missing ids). It does not mention any prerequisites or specific error formats beyond the missing-id note, but for a batch-read tool this is adequate. It could be slightly more explicit about the partial success behavior, but the statement 'missing ids are reported, not fatal' already conveys that.
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 compensate. The description implies that note_ids is the list of IDs to read, but it does not add extra meaning beyond what the parameter name suggests. Since the parameter is a simple array of strings, the meaning is fairly obvious, and the missing-id behavior does not clarify the parameter itself. The description meets the minimum bar but does not enrich 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('several notes'), and explicitly distinguishes from the singular sibling read_note by stating 'several at once'. It clearly identifies the batch nature of the tool, making it easy to differentiate.
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 description clearly conveys that this tool is for reading multiple notes in a single call, implying it is the batch counterpart to read_note. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context of batch reading is clear, so it provides adequate usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.