read_noteRead a Markdown note to access its content, front matter, and tags. Optionally render HTML for display.
Read a Markdown note. Returns its content, front matter, tags, and optionally HTML.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path to the note within the connection, e.g. /notes/todo.md | |
| render | No | Also return rendered HTML | |
| connection | Yes | The connection id (from list_connections) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The word 'Read' clearly indicates a non‑destructive operation, and the description lists what is returned. No annotations exist, but the read intent covers the primary behavioral aspect for a read‑only tool.
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 sentence that delivers all necessary information without redundancy; the purpose is front‑loaded and every phrase contributes meaning.
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 simple read operation with no output schema, listing the returned data (content, front matter, tags, optional HTML) is adequate. It does not cover error cases, but that is not critical for a read‑only tool in this context.
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 covers all three parameters (path, render, connection). The description adds value by explaining the 'render' parameter's optional HTML output, while 'path' and 'connection' are sufficiently clear from their schema descriptions.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'Read', the resource 'Markdown note', and specifies the returned data (content, front matter, tags, optional HTML), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from write or search operations.
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 description implies use when reading a note, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like render_markdown or search_notes, leaving the choice between alternatives somewhat inferential.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.