Apple Notes MCP Server

by arslankhanali

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

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 overlap: create_note, delete_note, list_accounts, list_notes, read_note, search_notes, and update_note all target specific, non-conflicting operations. An agent can easily distinguish between them based on their names and descriptions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as create_note, delete_note, list_accounts, list_notes, read_note, search_notes, and update_note. This uniformity makes the set predictable and easy to navigate for an agent.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing Apple Notes, covering essential operations like CRUD, listing, and searching. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy, fitting within the typical 3-15 tool range for such a domain.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete CRUD/lifecycle coverage for notes (create, read, update, delete), along with listing accounts and notes, and searching. There are no obvious gaps, enabling agents to perform all core workflows without dead ends.
Average 3/5 across 7 of 7 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
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is deletion (implying destructive behavior) but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, error handling (e.g., if note doesn't exist), or side effects. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose clearly. The 'Args' section adds parameter details without redundancy. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter explanations more seamlessly, and it lacks a concluding note on outcomes, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.
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 a destructive tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but misses behavioral details like safety warnings or error conditions. The output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but more context on the deletion process is warranted for full 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics: 'note_name' identifies the note to delete, and 'account' specifies an optional location. However, it doesn't explain format constraints (e.g., note naming rules), default behaviors for 'account', or examples, leaving parameters partially documented but incomplete.
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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a note by name'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_note' or 'update_note' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other destructive operations like 'delete_account' if such existed, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., note must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete system notes), or comparisons to siblings like 'update_note' for modification instead of deletion. This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists notes but doesn't describe what 'list' entails (e.g., format, pagination, sorting, permissions needed, or rate limits). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are brief but could be more integrated; overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity while maintaining clarity.
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 low complexity (2 optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter documentation, it lacks sufficient context for optimal agent use, especially regarding behavioral aspects.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that parameters are optional and provides examples ('iCloud', 'On My Mac'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't fully document parameter constraints or interactions, resulting in adequate but incomplete coverage.
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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('notes'), and distinguishes between listing all notes or filtered by account/folder. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_notes' or 'list_accounts', 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 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 'search_notes' or 'list_accounts'. It mentions optional filtering but doesn't explain when filtering is appropriate or what happens when no parameters are provided, leaving usage decisions unclear.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation, implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention any permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the note doesn't exist. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that accesses data.
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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another listing parameters. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The parameter documentation is somewhat redundant with the schema but adds minimal clarification, keeping it efficient.
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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and simple parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks context about when to use it, error handling, or behavioral traits, leaving room for improvement in guiding the 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 description explicitly documents both parameters ('note_name' and 'account') with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't provide details like format examples, constraints, or how the account parameter affects the operation, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.
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 with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('content of a specific note by name'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this read operation from other note-related tools like 'list_notes' or 'search_notes', which is why it doesn't reach 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 'list_notes' or 'search_notes'. It mentions an optional 'account' parameter but doesn't explain when this is needed or how it relates to other tools, leaving the agent with no usage context.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't describe permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to the note's metadata. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The structure is front-loaded with the main functionality. Minor improvement could come from integrating parameter details more seamlessly rather than a separate 'Args:' section.
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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema (which reduces need to describe return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks behavioral context like error conditions or side effects that would be important for safe usage.
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 description lists all three parameters with brief explanations, but schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no additional documentation. The description adds basic meaning (e.g., 'Name of the note to update'), but doesn't elaborate on format constraints, character limits, or how 'account' interacts with note location. This meets the baseline for having parameter information but doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap.
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 verb ('Update') and resource ('content of an existing note'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_note' or 'read_note' beyond the 'existing note' qualifier, which is why it doesn't reach 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 'create_note' or 'read_note'. It mentions 'existing note' which implies a prerequisite, but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over other tools or any usage constraints.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it correctly identifies this as a creation operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like what happens on duplicate titles, whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are required, or what the response format looks like. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then provides parameter explanations in a clean format. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose first.
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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the basic operation and parameters adequately. However, for a creation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about what happens after creation, error conditions, or system constraints. The parameter explanations are good, but overall completeness is just adequate.
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 description provides clear semantic explanations for all 4 parameters beyond what the schema offers (which has 0% description coverage). It explains that 'title' is the title/name, 'content' is the body, 'account' is optional with default behavior, and 'folder' is an optional location. This adds meaningful context that compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 as 'Create a new note with the specified title and content.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like delete_note, update_note, and read_note. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar creation tools if they existed, though in this context it's clear enough.
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 update_note or search_notes. It doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases. The only implicit guidance is that it's for creating new notes, but no explicit when/when-not instructions are 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists accounts but doesn't describe traits like pagination, sorting, filtering, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. For a read operation 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, with no wasted verbiage.
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, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context like how accounts are returned or any constraints, which could be helpful despite the output schema. For a basic list tool, it meets the minimum but doesn't excel.
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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, aligning with the schema. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't add unnecessary information.
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 ('List') and resource ('Notes accounts'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_notes' by specifying accounts rather than notes, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The verb+resource combination is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_notes' or other account-related operations. The description implies usage for retrieving accounts but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate application scenarios.
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 states the tool searches notes, but doesn't describe key behaviors such as whether the search is case-sensitive, supports wildcards, returns partial matches, includes metadata, handles pagination, or has rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.
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: a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point list of parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information, making it easy to scan 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 moderate complexity (search function with 2 parameters), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which likely handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details like search specifics or error handling. With an output schema, it doesn't need to explain return values, but other contextual gaps remain.
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 description adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'query' is described as 'Text to search for in note content', and 'account' as 'Optional account name to search within'. This clarifies the purpose of each parameter beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage and only provides titles and types. The description effectively compensates for the low schema coverage by explaining what each parameter does.
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: 'Search for notes containing the specified text.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('notes'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_notes', which might also retrieve notes but without text-based filtering.
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 through the action of searching notes by text content, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_notes' (which might list all notes without filtering) or 'read_note' (which might retrieve a specific note by ID). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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