Retrieve one saved note in full by its numeric ID, so coding agents can recall stored context or decisions without loading unrelated notes.
Read one saved note in full by its id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | id of the note |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| at | Yes | ||
| id | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| tags | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| author | Yes | ||
| notice | Yes | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| superseded_by | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful piece of behavioral context — 'in full' implies untruncated retrieval, unlike a search summary — but says nothing about what happens when the id is absent or invalid, which is the main failure mode for an id lookup.
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to identifying the operation.
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, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the single required parameter is fully documented. The only real gap is the absence of routing guidance against memory_search, which is minor for such a simple tool.
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 100% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation. The description's 'by its id' merely restates it without adding format, range, or sourcing guidance, which is the baseline-3 case for a fully documented schema.
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?
The description gives a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('one saved note'), and scope ('in full by its id'), which distinguishes it implicitly from the sibling memory_search (query-based retrieval vs single-item retrieval). It stops short of naming the alternative, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'by its id' signals you must already have an id, which hints that this is the follow-up to a memory_search result. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus memory_search, nor any exclusion or prerequisite.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.