librarian-get-noteRetrieve the full content of a specific vault note by its path, as returned by search. Read-only access for AI clients.
Return the full content of one vault note by its path (as returned by librarian-search). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Vault-relative note path, e.g. 'Notes/Reference/foo.md'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
'Read-only' restates readOnlyHint=true and earns no credit. The one genuine addition is that it returns *full content*, implicitly contrasting with the snippet-level results of search, but there is no mention of behavior on missing/invalid paths. With annotations already covering the safety profile, this sits at the minimum-viable level.
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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the action and return payload, followed by the shortest possible safety tag. Nothing wasteful and nothing buried.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned ('full content') and where the path comes from. It does not address failure modes (path not found, unreadable vault), which is the only remaining gap.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying the path value to librarian-search output. That interop detail is the useful part an agent needs to construct the argument correctly.
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?
Specific verb and resource: 'Return the full content of one vault note by its path.' It goes further than the title by naming the exact key (path) and mentioning the sibling that produces that key, which cleanly separates it from librarian-search and librarian-recent.
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?
The parenthetical '(as returned by librarian-search)' tells the agent when this tool applies: retrieving a full note once a path is known from search. There is no explicit when-not or statement about what to do if the path is missing, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.