volta-mcp-server

read_volta_note

Read and permanently destroy a Volta secure note to access sensitive credentials. Retrieve encrypted data from self-destructing, burn-after-read URLs.

Instructions

Reads a Volta secure note and permanently destroys it. Call this when a user sends you a voltanotes.com URL containing sensitive information. The note content is returned once — it cannot be recovered after this call.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "read_volta_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	The full Volta note URL including the #fragment key, e.g. https://app.voltanotes.com/r/abc12345#encryptionKeyHere

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excellently discloses critical behavioral traits: the destructive nature ('permanently destroys'), one-time access ('returned once'), and irreversibility ('cannot be recovered').

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tightly constructed sentences with zero waste: first states the core action, second provides the usage trigger, and third explains the critical one-time behavioral constraint. Information is front-loaded effectively.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite lacking annotations and an output schema, the description adequately covers the return value behavior ('note content is returned once') and compensates for missing safety annotations by explicitly describing the destruction. Could optionally note authentication requirements or error states.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a detailed example URL in the schema description. The description references the URL in context ('sends you a voltanotes.com URL') but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses specific verbs ('Reads' and 'destroys') with the resource ('Volta secure note') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tool create_volta_note by emphasizing consumption/destruction versus creation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call this when a user sends you a voltanotes.com URL containing sensitive information'), though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool as an alternative for creation workflows.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server