Read a note's original content by ID, returning reference content, webpage text, recording transcript, or body text depending on note type; errors if no original exists or type is unsupported.
直接读取笔记原文。引用笔记返回 ref_content，链接笔记返回网页原文，录音笔记返回转写原文，文字笔记返回正文；无原文或不支持的类型会报错。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 笔记 ID，推荐十进制字符串 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: the return type varies by note kind, and certain inputs raise errors rather than returning empty. '直接读取' also signals a raw passthrough read rather than a structured/metadata fetch. It does not state permission requirements or whether the call has any side effects, which keeps it below a 5.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and a compact semicolon-delimited mapping of note type to return value. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the schema or name.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does so by note type — including the error case. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient; the main omission is whether large originals are truncated or size-limited.
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?
Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('笔记 ID，推荐十进制字符串'). The description adds nothing about the id — no note on ID reuse across note types or cross-account scope. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.
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?
A specific verb and resource — '直接读取笔记原文' — followed by an enumeration of what is returned for each note type (引用/链接/录音/文字). This lets an agent predict the payload shape without opening anything else. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling get_note or get_note_transcript, which overlap on the audio-transcript case.
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 gives a real usage condition by naming the failure modes: notes with no original content or unsupported types will error. That tells an agent when not to call it. It never names an alternative tool (e.g., get_note_transcript for audio, get_note for structured fields), so the selection among siblings is still left partly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.