Read a note in full, including its type and attachments, to preserve researcher reasoning without truncation.
Read one note in full, with its type and what it is attached to.
Notes hold the researcher's own reasoning — why a conflict was resolved one way, what a hard-to-read page actually said — so the text comes back whole rather than truncated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | Handle or gramps_id of the note. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the text is returned untruncated and that type/attachment metadata is included, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior for a bad handle, or response shape.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a rationale for why the full text matters. The second sentence is explanatory rather than operational, but it is brief and does justify itself.
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-only getter with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is read, that it is complete rather than truncated, and what metadata accompanies the text. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 100% and the single 'note' parameter is documented as 'Handle or gramps_id of the note.' The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup-rule detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for schema-documented parameters is correct.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read one note in full') and even names what the response carries (its type and what it is attached to), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling getters like get_object or query_objects, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: 'comes back whole rather than truncated' hints that this is the tool to reach for when complete note text matters, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use rule and no named alternative (get_object, query_objects). Adequate but leaves the routing decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.