Skip to main content
Glama
Go-555

note-post-mcp

by Go-555
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.7

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one publishes a note, the other saves a draft. There is no overlap in their actions, and their descriptions make the difference explicit.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: publish_note and save_draft. The naming style is uniform and predictable, despite the second tool using 'draft' instead of 'note'.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only 2 tools, the server is slightly under the typical 3-15 range, but the scope is narrow and focused on posting content to note.com, so the count feels reasonable rather than overly thin.

    Completeness4/5

    The server covers the two primary content-creation actions: publishing and saving drafts. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update or delete), but for the stated purpose of publishing from Markdown files, the surface is largely complete.

  • Average 3.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behaviors. It only states the core action and does not mention authentication requirements, side effects such as overwriting existing drafts, or failure behaviors. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.

    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?

    The description is concise, consisting of two short sentences that directly convey the purpose without unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    The tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must compensate by explaining return behavior, prerequisites, and edge cases. It provides none, leaving the agent without information on what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, draft ID) or what is required for it to work (e.g., authentication). This is a significant gap for a write operation.

    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?

    The schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions reading title, body, and tags from Markdown, which aligns with the markdown_path parameter definition but does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema already states. Other parameters (timeout, state_path, etc.) are left to the schema.

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

    Purpose5/5

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

    The description clearly states the tool's function: saving a draft to note.com by reading content from a Markdown file. It specifies the resource (note.com), the action (save draft), and the input source (Markdown), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'publish_note' that likely publishes rather than saves drafts.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description implies usage when a draft needs to be saved without publishing, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the sibling 'publish_note' or any exclusions. No alternative tools or conditions are referenced, so guidance is only implicit.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions reading from Markdown and automatically posting, but fails to disclose that authentication state is required (indicated by state_path), that screenshots may be taken, or that publishing is typically a one-way action. This leaves the agent unaware of prerequisites and side effects.

    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?

    The entire description is a single clear sentence that gets straight to the point without any filler, making it easy to parse.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the core publishing action and does not address authentication, handling of optional parameters, return values, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

    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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for markdown_path by specifying it contains title, body, and tags, but provides no additional semantics for state_path, screenshot_dir, thumbnail_path, or timeout beyond the schema.

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

    Purpose5/5

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

    The description clearly states it publishes an article to note.com by reading title, body, and tags from a Markdown file. This distinguishes it from the sibling save_draft, which is about saving rather than publishing.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    It clearly describes the tool's function of publishing from a Markdown file, providing context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention save_draft or list conditions for when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

note-post-mcp-v2 MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

note-post-mcp-v2 MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Go-555/note-post-mcp-v2'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server