Skip to main content
Glama
alondmnt

Joplin MCP Server

by alondmnt

create_note

Create a note with title and content in a specified Joplin notebook, optionally as a todo with due date and completion status.

Instructions

Create a new note in a specified notebook in Joplin.

Creates a new note with the specified title, content, and properties. Uses notebook name
for easier identification instead of requiring notebook IDs.

Notebook can be specified by name or path:
- "Work" - matches notebook named "Work" (must be unique)
- "Projects/Work" - matches "Work" notebook inside "Projects"

Returns:
    str: Success message with the created note's title and unique ID.

Examples:
    - create_note("Shopping List", "Personal Notes", "- Milk
  • Eggs", True, False) - Create uncompleted todo - create_note("Meeting Notes", "Work Projects", "# Meeting with Client") - Create regular note - create_note("Task", "Work", "", True, False, "2024-12-31T17:00:00") - Create todo with due date - create_note("Task", "Project A/tasks", "body") - Create note in "tasks" sub-notebook under "Project A"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesNote title
notebook_nameYesNotebook name or path (e.g., 'Work' or 'Projects/Work/Tasks')
bodyNoNote content
is_todoNoCreate as todo (default: False)
todo_completedNoMark todo as completed (default: False)
todo_dueNoDue date: Unix timestamp (ms) or ISO 8601 string (e.g., '2024-12-31T17:00:00'). Only for todos.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively communicates the tool's behavior: it creates a note, uses notebook name/path resolution, and returns a success message with ID. It does not disclose potential errors, idempotency, or permissions, but the core behavior 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is structured with sections, bullet points, and examples. While it is somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise, but the clarity benefits from the detailed examples.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description is complete for a creation tool with an output schema (returns str). It covers parameters, behavior, examples, and return value. Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, 2 required), the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value by explaining notebook path syntax, default values, and providing examples that show correct parameter combinations (e.g., is_todo with body, todo_due). This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Create a new note in a specified notebook in Joplin.' It specifies the action (create), resource (note), and context (notebook). The examples further illustrate usage, and it distinguishes from siblings like edit_note and update_note by focusing on creation.

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?

The description provides guidance on notebook specification (name or path) and includes multiple examples showing different use cases (regular note, todo, todo with due date, sub-notebook). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for other operations.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/alondmnt/joplin-mcp'

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