google-keep-mcp

find

Search notes by matching text against title and content, with optional inclusion of archived and trashed notes.

Instructions

Find notes based on a search query. Alias for search_by_keyword.

Args:
    query (str, optional): A string to match against the title and text
    include_archived (bool, optional): Include archived notes in results (default: True)
    include_trashed (bool, optional): Include trashed notes in results (default: False)
    
Returns:
    str: JSON string containing the matching notes

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "find"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	No
`include_trashed`	No
`include_archived`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is read-only ('Find notes') and returns a JSON string, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or discuss potential side effects.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The docstring format is efficient, though the 'Returns' section could be condensed.

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 presence of an output schema and many sibling tools, the description adequately explains the basic functionality and return format, but lacks context on error handling and differentiation from the aliased tool beyond the alias statement.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides type, optionality, and default values for each parameter, and clarifies that 'query' matches against title and text, which the schema omits.

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 it finds notes based on a search query and explicitly identifies itself as an alias for search_by_keyword, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_by_label.

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 mentions it is an alias for search_by_keyword, implying they are interchangeable, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus others or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server