NoteKing MCP

noteking_get_note

Fetch a note's complete Markdown content, metadata, and attachments by ID, plus optional rendered GitHub Flavored HTML when you need readable note context.

Instructions

Retrieve a note's full Markdown content, metadata, attachments, and optional rendered HTML

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "noteking_get_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Unique identifier of the note
`render_markdown`	No	Whether to include rendered GitHub Flavored HTML in the response

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return payload ('full Markdown content, metadata, attachments, and optional rendered HTML'), which signals a read-only fetch, but says nothing about behavior when the note is missing, permission requirements, or response size characteristics.

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 no filler. The verb and resource come first and the payload enumeration follows, so nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what comes back, which is the main thing an agent would otherwise lack. Only error/missing-note behavior is unaddressed, a minor gap at this complexity.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The phrase 'optional rendered HTML' loosely maps to render_markdown but adds no format or default detail beyond the schema's own description; 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a note') and enumerates the payload scope: Markdown content, metadata, attachments, and optional rendered HTML. That scope distinguishes it from siblings like noteking_list_notes or noteking_get_stats without needing to name them, though no sibling is called out explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing a valid note id), and no routing to alternatives such as noteking_list_notes when the id is unknown. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Retrieve'.

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

Deploy Server