Retrieve detailed note information by ID, returning trimmed fields by default or raw JSON if requested. Use for accessing specific note content.
Get note detail. GET /notes/:id. 详见 references/api/note_api.md
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | Return raw full JSON (default false, returns trimmed fields) | |
| note_id | Yes | Note ID (required) |
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 the full behavioral burden, and it delivers only an HTTP verb and path. It says nothing about authentication requirements, error behavior, whether the note must be accessible/owned, or what the trimmed default response contains. The 'raw' flag behavior is only explained in the schema, not here.
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?
Three short fragments, front-loaded with the action, which is efficient. However the '详见 references/api/note_api.md' pointer is of little use to an agent and consumes space without adding actionable 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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage this is minimally adequate. Since no output schema exists, the description could have described the trimmed-vs-raw return shape, and it omits any auth or error 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 description coverage is 100%, with both note_id and raw documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the path template.
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+resource ('Get note detail') and the underlying endpoint, which is enough to separate it from yuque_list_notes and yuque_create_note. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings like yuque_get_doc, so it isn't a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer an alternative such as yuque_search or yuque_list_notes. The endpoint string is a hint at usage but not real guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.