Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
notes-mcp

notes-mcp

by pdegner
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_note

Retrieve a complete note, including its body, by providing its note ID. Access full note content for reading or reference.

Instructions

Read one note in full, including its body.

Args:
    note_id: The note's id, as returned by list_notes or search_notes.

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": {
      "note_id": "<note_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
note_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the full note including body is returned, but doesn't mention error handling, permissions, or side effects (though 'Read' implies non-destructive). Basic transparency only.

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?

The description is two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by a concise parameter explanation. No redundant phrases, perfectly front-loaded.

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 an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention what happens for invalid IDs, but the output schema covers return values. Slight gap but not substantial.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining note_id as 'The note's id, as returned by list_notes or search_notes.' This adds crucial provenance and format context beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states 'Read one note in full, including its body.' This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like list_notes (likely summaries) and search_notes.

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 provides guidance that the note_id comes from list_notes or search_notes, implying a workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives, though the purpose is clear enough.

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