note-mcp

Get note.com draft detail

note_get_draft

Fetch a specific note draft's full content and details using its key. Get the key by listing drafts first.

Instructions

Fetches an authenticated draft detail by note key via GET /v3/notes/{noteKey}?draft=true&draft_reedit=false. Use note_list_drafts to find the draft key first.

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": {
      "noteKey": "<noteKey>"
    },
    "name": "note_get_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`noteKey`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It honestly describes the HTTP endpoint and query parameters, and notes that it's 'authenticated', providing some useful context. However, it omits error handling, rate limits, or response format, leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 sentences, each earning its place. The first describes the action and endpoint; the second provides a necessary prerequisite. There is zero filler.

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 simple GET operation with a single parameter, it covers purpose, endpoint, auth requirement, and key sourcing. It doesn't describe the response shape, which would be helpful given no output schema, but it remains adequate for a low-complexity tool.

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 0% for noteKey, but the description compensates by explaining that the parameter is a 'note key' and directing the agent to note_list_drafts to find it. This adds practical meaning beyond the bare schema definition.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Fetches an authenticated draft detail') with a clear resource ('by note key') and endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings like note_get_note by explicitly mentioning 'draft=true', making the draft focus unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a clear prerequisite: 'Use note_list_drafts to find the draft key first.' This tells the agent how to obtain the key. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with note_get_note or other sibling tools, so it misses a point for lacking an explicit alternative exclusion.

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