Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Inkdrop MCP Server

Inkdrop MCP Server

Official
by inkdropapp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

read-tag

Retrieve a specific tag from your Inkdrop database by providing its unique tag ID.

Instructions

Retrieve a single tag

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": {
      "tagId": "<tagId>"
    },
    "name": "read-tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagIdYesID of the tag to retrieve. It can be found as `_id` in the tag docs. It always starts with `tag:`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.4.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but it does not discuss behavior on missing tags, permissions needed, or any other traits. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and falls short.

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?

The description is extremely concise—four words—and immediately states purpose. No wasted information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not specify return format, error behavior, or any additional context that would help an agent use the tool effectively.

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 well-documented tagId parameter. The description adds no extra semantic information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description 'Retrieve a single tag' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from tools like list-tags (multiple tags) and read-note (different resource). However, it does not specify how the tag is identified (by ID), which is a minor gap.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list-tags or search-notes. There is no mention of prerequisites or context such as requiring an existing tag ID.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools