NotePlan MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| get_notesD | – |
| get_note_by_idD | – |
| search_notesD | – |
| get_notes_by_folderD | – |
| create_noteD | – |
| create_daily_noteD | – |
| update_noteD | – |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 7 tools
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting different operations on notes (create, get, search, update). However, 'create_daily_note' and 'create_note' could cause confusion without descriptions to clarify their differences, as they appear to overlap in creating notes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., create_note, get_notes, update_note). There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the set predictable and readable.
With 7 tools, this server is well-scoped for note management. The count is appropriate, covering core operations without being too sparse or overwhelming, fitting typical MCP server ranges.
The tool set provides good coverage for note CRUD operations (create, get, update) and additional utilities like search and folder-based retrieval. A minor gap is the lack of a delete_note tool, which could limit full lifecycle management, but agents can still handle most workflows.