KURA Notes MCP Client

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity: create, delete, get, list recent, and search are all unique operations on notes. The descriptions reinforce this by specifying different actions (e.g., 'create a new text note' vs. 'retrieve a specific note'), making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent 'kura_verb' pattern (e.g., kura_create, kura_delete), with verbs that clearly indicate the action. There are no deviations in style or convention, making the naming predictable and easy to understand across the set.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for a notes management system. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function (create, delete, get, list, search), covering core operations without being overly complex or too sparse, which is ideal for this domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides strong coverage for basic CRUD and search operations on notes, including create, delete, get, list, and semantic search. A minor gap exists in the lack of an update or edit tool, which could be a common need in note-taking workflows, but agents can work around this by deleting and recreating notes if necessary.
Average 3.5/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
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
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns relevant notes with metadata, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning it's a read operation, but it avoids redundancy and wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (semantic search with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and return type but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools, leaving clear gaps for an agent.
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 the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples of query formats or tag usage). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the action ('Perform semantic search') and resource ('across KURA Notes'), distinguishing it from siblings like create, delete, get, and list_recent. However, it doesn't specify the scope (e.g., all notes vs. recent) or differentiate from potential text-based search alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kura_list_recent or kura_get. It mentions semantic search but doesn't clarify if this is the primary search method or when to prefer it over other filtering options, leaving usage context implied at best.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a creation tool ('Create a new text note'), implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether creation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic creation intent.
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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or unnecessary information. It's well-structured and front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (creation operation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects, error handling, or return values. For a creation tool without annotations, it should ideally provide more context about what happens after creation.
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 all 4 parameters (content, title, annotation, tags) with their types and descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a new text note in KURA Notes' with specific examples of what to capture ('ideas, information, or any text content'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on creation rather than deletion, retrieval, listing, or searching. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from hypothetical creation alternatives beyond the sibling context.
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 provides implied usage context: 'Use this to capture ideas, information, or any text content.' This suggests when to use it (for text note creation) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like using other tools for different operations. No explicit comparison to sibling tools is provided.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool lists '20 most recent notes' and excludes 'full content,' which adds some context. However, it doesn't cover critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that directly state the tool's function and usage. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does and its basic usage, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits like safety, performance, or return format. This makes it minimally viable but incomplete for full contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it efficiently handles the lack of parameters without unnecessary elaboration.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List the 20 most recent notes with their metadata (without full content).' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('notes'), scope ('20 most recent'), and output limitation ('without full content'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like kura_search or kura_get, which prevents a perfect score.
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 provides implied usage guidance: 'Use this to get an overview of recent activity.' This suggests when to use the tool (for recent overviews) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like kura_search for different filtering needs. It offers basic context but lacks explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves a note and returns content and metadata, which covers basic behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation support.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and return info but lacks details on output structure, error cases, or behavioral nuances. For a retrieval tool with minimal structured support, it is adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 specific action ('Retrieve'), resource ('a specific note'), and identifier ('by its ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like kura_create (create), kura_delete (delete), kura_list_recent (list recent), and kura_search (search). It provides a complete purpose statement with no ambiguity.
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 you need a specific note by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like kura_search (for searching notes) or kura_list_recent (for listing recent notes). The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses that the action is 'permanent and cannot be undone,' which is critical for a destructive operation. This goes beyond the basic 'delete' verb to warn about irreversibility, though it doesn't cover other aspects like permissions or error handling.
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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and followed by a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive delete operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it clarifies the purpose and warns about permanence. However, it lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs) or response behavior, leaving minor gaps for a mutation tool.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no extra details on ID format or constraints), so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 specific action ('Delete') and target resource ('a note by its ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like kura_create, kura_get, kura_list_recent, and kura_search. It uses precise verb+resource language without being tautological.
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 by stating 'Delete a note by its ID,' which suggests this tool is for removing notes when their ID is known. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., vs. kura_create for creation) or provide exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat inferred.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![kura-notes-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/TillMatthis/kura-notes-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/TillMatthis/kura-notes-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![kura-notes-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/TillMatthis/kura-notes-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/TillMatthis/kura-notes-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/TillMatthis/kura-notes-mcp'

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