Retrieves a note's content and etag by ID. The etag enables conditional updates when passed to update_note.
Fetch one note including its content and etag. Pass the etag to update_note to make the write conditional on nothing else having changed the note first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| exclude | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond annotations by explaining the etag's role in optimistic-concurrency writes to update_note, though it says nothing about the exclude parameter's effect on the response.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is fetched and then the etag workflow. Every clause earns its place with no padding.
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?
With no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description should carry more of the load. It names content and etag but omits the other likely return fields and the exclude parameter entirely, leaving a notable gap for a tool whose schema is undocumented.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters. The description mentions content (which loosely maps to an exclude enum value) but never explains the required id or, critically, the exclude array that suppresses fields. It leaves the agent without guidance on a parameter the schema does not describe.
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?
States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (one note) plus what is returned (content and etag), which clearly distinguishes it from list_notes and the mutation siblings. No ambiguity about what the tool does.
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?
Gives a clear use context: retrieve the etag to make a conditional write via update_note. It does not explicitly address when NOT to use it versus list_notes, but the single-note scope and the write-workflow linkage are strong guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.