Skip to main content
Glama
belsar-ai

joplin-mcp

by belsar-ai
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v4.1.1

  • Disambiguation4/5

    The two tools have nearly identical names and both execute JavaScript, differing only in permissions (read-only vs. write). The descriptions are detailed enough to distinguish them, but the overlap in core functionality could cause initial confusion for an agent.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow a consistent 'execute_joplin_<permission>_script' pattern, using snake_case and clear permission labels (readonly vs. script). No mixing of conventions.

    Tool Count3/5

    Only 2 tools for a server that exposes a full API (CRUD for notebooks, notes, search, etc.) feels minimal. While the design intentionally wraps everything into two script executors, a more granular tool surface might be expected given the scope.

    Completeness5/5

    All operations available through the Joplin API are accessible via the two tools (read-only in one, write in the other). No obvious gaps in functionality; the set fully covers the domain.

  • Average 4.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.

  • 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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses the write/destructive nature, lists all destructive methods, mentions top-level await, and provides specific output behavior for editNote. Minor gaps include not addressing error handling or execution limits.

    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: start with purpose, then methods, then rules. However, it is somewhat lengthy; each sentence adds value, but could be tightened slightly for better conciseness.

    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 tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers methods, rules, and return behavior. Missing details include potential execution limits or error handling, but overall adequate.

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

    Parameters5/5

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

    With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning by detailing the expected global 'joplin' object, available methods, and rules, far exceeding what the schema's simple string description provides.

    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 precisely states it executes JavaScript with write/destructive permissions using a global 'joplin' object. It distinguishes itself from the sibling readonly tool by explicitly listing the additional destructive methods, making its purpose clear and unique.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance, including the rule that createNote requires calling listNotebooks() first, and a special output handling rule for editNote. It also contrasts with the readonly sibling, offering clear alternatives.

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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    The description discloses all behavioral traits: read-only mode, blocking modifications, top-level await, return of results, and special handling of pre-formatted output methods. No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden, and it does so thoroughly.

    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 lengthy but well-organized into sections (notebooks, notes, search, rules). It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While every sentence is useful, the overall length could be slightly reduced without losing clarity.

    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?

    Given the tool's complexity, no output schema, and single parameter, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers all available methods, search syntax, and behavioral rules, leaving no ambiguity about how to use the tool.

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

    Parameters5/5

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

    Although the schema covers the single parameter 'script' with a basic description, the tool description adds significant context by specifying the expected code structure (e.g., using joplin methods, search syntax) and providing detailed API references.

    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 executes JavaScript with the 'joplin' object in read-only mode. It lists available methods for notebooks and notes, and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling by emphasizing read-only operations.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    The description provides comprehensive usage guidelines, including how to call methods (e.g., joplin.notebooks.X()), search syntax with examples, and rules for pre-formatted output (respond only 'Done'). It implies when to use this tool versus the sibling by specifying read-only mode.

    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

joplin-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

joplin-mcp 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/belsar-ai/joplin-mcp'

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