Retrieve a single note by ID from a local SQLite knowledge base. Use it to fetch one specific note for reading or referencing.
Retrieve a single note by its id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| created_at | Yes | ||
| updated_at | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the implied read nature of 'Retrieve'. It does not state permission requirements, behavior on a missing/invalid id, or whether deleted notes are visible.
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 tight sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though terse enough that it forgoes useful context.
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 values need not be described, and one identifier parameter is a simple contract. Still, with zero annotations and no schema parameter description, the definition omits error/not-found behavior and authorization context that an agent would want before calling.
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 schema does not explain note_id; the description partially compensates by identifying it as the note's id. It adds no format, type, or sourcing detail (e.g., where the id comes from), leaving the parameter only half-documented.
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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a single note') plus the lookup key ('by its id'), so an agent can distinguish it from list/search-style siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with search_notes, which would be the natural source of confusion.
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: 'by its id' signals this is for cases where the identifier is already known, contrasting implicitly with search_notes. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_notes or what happens if the id is unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.