Read a single Open Notebook note by ID, with long content cut at a configurable character limit and marked as truncated.
Read one note. Long content is cut at max_chars (up to 50000) and marked truncated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note_id | Yes | ||
| max_chars | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| created | No | ||
| updated | No | ||
| note_type | No | ||
| truncated | Yes | ||
| content_chars | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral value by disclosing truncation semantics, the 50000 upper bound (not present in the schema, which only shows a default of 8000), and the truncation marker. It does not say what happens for an unknown note_id, which is the remaining gap.
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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the truncation caveat immediately after. Every clause earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description need not explain return values. However, for a fetch-by-id tool it omits not-found/error behavior and where note_id is obtained, which an agent needs to recover from failures.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains max_chars behavior and its ceiling well, but says nothing about note_id's expected format or provenance, leaving the required parameter undocumented.
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 concrete verb and resource ("Read one note") and the singular scope implicitly separates it from the list-style siblings open_notebook_notes and open_notebook_search. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.
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?
No guidance on when to prefer this over open_notebook_notes, open_notebook_search, or open_notebook_source_get, and no prerequisites such as where note_id comes from. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.