get_noteRetrieve a single stored note by its ID and return the full content. Use it after listing or searching notes when you need the complete text.
Fetch one note by id, with full content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Note id from list_notes or search_notes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does 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 that the response includes 'full content' (vs a preview), which is useful payload context not in annotations, but says nothing about error behavior for a missing id or about pagination/sizing of large notes.
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?
A single short sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing to trim and nothing wasteful.
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 annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the one thing missing elsewhere: that the return value is the complete note body. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.
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?
There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'id' including its source. The description's 'by id' merely restates that; baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.
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 specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one note by id') and adds a distinguishing detail: it returns 'full content', which separates it from list/search style siblings. It does not explicitly name list_notes or search_notes as alternatives, so differentiation is implied 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?
The single-note scope implies this is the tool to use once an id is known, and the schema notes the id comes 'from list_notes or search_notes'. However, the description itself contains no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or prerequisite statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.