Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
big-brain

big-brain

by jzhao234
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Read a note

read_note

Fetch markdown notes from a personal knowledge vault by path, title, alias, or filename, returning frontmatter and full body for AI context.

Instructions

Read a note by path, title, alias, or filename (case-insensitive). Returns frontmatter and full body.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refYesPath like 'projects/Foo.md', or a title/alias

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses case-insensitive matching and that the response includes frontmatter plus full body, which matters since no output schema exists. It omits failure behavior (e.g., what happens when the reference resolves to nothing) and any concurrency or size caveats.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the lookup-key enumeration front-loaded and the return payload second. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call mechanics and return contents. The only meaningful omission is not-found/ambiguity handling when a reference is missing or matches multiple notes.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by declaring case-insensitive matching and adding 'filename' as an accepted form that the schema's 'Path like ... or a title/alias' does not mention. That extra acceptance detail is actionable for constructing ref.

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 (note) and enumerates the accepted reference forms (path, title, alias, filename). It is unambiguous what the tool returns, but it never names or contrasts itself with siblings like search_notes, list_notes, or related_notes, which an agent must distinguish it from.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description makes clear this fetches an existing note when you already know its reference. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as search_notes when the reference is unknown.

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