Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Noteastic MCP

Noteastic MCP

by Canxinner
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Noteastic-Seite exportieren

export_page

Export a Noteastic page as PNG, PDF, or both, saving files locally in the configured export folder without altering the original backup.

Instructions

Exportiert eine Noteastic-Seite lokal als PNG, PDF oder beides. Die Sicherung bleibt unverändert; neue Dateien werden ausschließlich im konfigurierten Export-Ordner angelegt.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pageId": "<pageId>"
    },
    "name": "export_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scaleNoAuflösung: 1 bis 3, Standard 2
formatNoGewünschtes Exportformatboth
pageIdYesSeiten-ID aus get_notebook

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, but the description carries the burden well: it explicitly states the backup is unchanged and that new files are created only in the configured export folder. It does not disclose overwrite behavior or return details, but the side-effect profile is clear.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences front-load the purpose and then add the only important side effect. There is no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 3-parameter export tool, the description covers purpose, formats, and file-creation location. With no output schema, a note about return values or overwrite behavior would make it fully complete, but the essential invocation details are present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents scale, format, and pageId. The description's mention of 'PNG, PDF oder beides' adds little beyond the enum values and no additional meaning for scale or pageId.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a concrete operation: exporting a Noteastic page locally in PNG, PDF, or both formats. It clearly identifies the resource (page) and outcome, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling export_notebook tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to prefer export_page over export_notebook or other siblings, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied usage is the resource name 'Seite' versus notebook.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools