Skip to main content
Glama
sayranovv
by sayranovv

read_note

Retrieve the content of a Markdown note by specifying its filename to access stored information from the Notes MCP Server.

Instructions

Read the contents of a note

Args: filename: Note filename (with .md extension)

Returns: Note content

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'read_note' tool. It reads the specified note file from the notes directory and returns its content, or an error message if the file does not exist. Decorated with @mcp.tool() for registration.
    @mcp.tool()
    def read_note(filename: str) -> str:
        """
        Read the contents of a note
        
        Args:
            filename: Note filename (with .md extension)
        
        Returns:
            Note content
        """
        ensure_notes_dir()
        filepath = os.path.join(NOTES_DIR, filename)
        
        if not os.path.exists(filepath):
            return f"Note '{filename}' not found"
        
        with open(filepath, "r", encoding="utf-8") as f:
            return f.read()
  • Input/output schema defined in the docstring of the read_note function, describing the filename parameter and return value.
    """
    Read the contents of a note
    
    Args:
        filename: Note filename (with .md extension)
    
    Returns:
        Note content
    """
  • notes_server.py:88-88 (registration)
    Registration of the 'read_note' tool via the @mcp.tool() decorator.
    @mcp.tool()
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation, which implies safety, but doesn't cover potential errors (e.g., if the file doesn't exist), permissions needed, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the formatting could be slightly more polished (e.g., using bullet points). Every sentence adds value, earning a high score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity, one parameter, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or differentiation from siblings, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's correct usage in more complex scenarios.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds the parameter 'filename' and specifies it should include '.md extension'. This provides some semantic context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, such as format constraints or examples, so it meets the baseline.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('contents of a note'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_notes' or 'list_notes' which also involve reading notes in different ways, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_notes' or 'list_notes'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing the exact filename, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context for this specific read operation.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sayranovv/notes-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server