Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Notes Server

MCP Notes Server

by pipinho13
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

read_note

Retrieve the complete content of a saved note by providing its title.

Instructions

Read the full content of one note.

Args:
    title: The title of the note to read.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core read behavior but does not mention behavior on missing titles, error handling, or whether any uniqueness or exact-match constraints apply. The description adds minimal context beyond the tool name.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes only the necessary parameter explanation. Every part earns its place.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter signature and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete for calling the tool. It could mention what to do when the title does not exist or how to discover valid titles, but those are not required to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The description explicitly defines the single parameter, saying 'title: The title of the note to read.' This adds a little meaning beyond the schema, which only says the property is a string named 'title.' It does not add constraints, exact-match expectations, or format details, but for one simple string parameter that is adequate.

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 clearly states the action ('Read') and the resource ('one note'), and 'full content' distinguishes it from list/search operations. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the verb-resource-scope combination makes the purpose clear.

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?

The description does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_notes or search_notes. It only describes the operation itself; any usage context such as 'when you already know the note's title' is implied rather than stated.

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