Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Goodnotes Web MCP

Goodnotes Web MCP

by hb442
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

goodnotes_list_trash

Read-only

Lists a bounded portion of native Trash with document and page IDs without emptying it, so you can inspect deleted items before deciding what to restore or remove.

Instructions

List a bounded part of the native Trash, including document and page IDs. Never empties Trash.

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": "goodnotes_list_trash"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
offsetNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.21.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely structured data. The description reinforces this with "Never empties Trash" and adds the scope qualifier "bounded part", but says nothing about ordering, total counts, or what paging past the end returns.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded before the safety caveat. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is returned (document and page IDs), the scope (native Trash), and the non-destructive guarantee. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so both limit and offset are documented only by type, default, and min/max bounds. The phrase "bounded part" gestures at pagination but does not explain which parameter bounds the page size, how offset behaves, or the practical ceiling of 100 items per call.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list a bounded part of the native Trash, returning document and page IDs. That is clearly distinct from the sibling goodnotes_trash_document, which moves items into the Trash, but the description does not explicitly name that contrast.

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?

"Never empties Trash" plus the read-only framing implies this is the safe inspection call before any destructive operation, but no when-to-use condition is stated. There is no mention of paging strategy or of alternatives such as goodnotes_list for non-trashed content.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools