Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cairn

cairn

by juw12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

read_note

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a note's full frontmatter and Markdown body plus all notes linking to it to understand its content and references.

Instructions

Read one note in full (frontmatter and Markdown body) plus the notes that link to it.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "read_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesNote path (tasks/ship-v1.md), slug (ship-v1) or title

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing what the call returns — frontmatter, body and backlinks — which no output schema provides. It doesn't say what happens when the note is missing or how backlinks are ordered, keeping 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource, the scope and the returned content are all packed in without redundancy.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose and return contents sufficiently to call it correctly. Minor gaps — error behavior for unknown notes, backlink ordering, and no size-limit note for large notes — keep it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100% and the path parameter already documents accepted forms (path, slug or title). The description adds no additional meaning about resolution order or ambiguity handling, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one note') and clarifies the scope of the result: full frontmatter plus Markdown body plus inbound links. This distinguishes it from bulk siblings like list_notes and search, though it never names those alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'one note in full' implies single-note retrieval versus listing or searching, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of routing to search or list_notes for multi-note needs.

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