Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Goodnotes Web MCP

Goodnotes Web MCP

by hb442
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

goodnotes_open

Read-only

Opens a notebook or whiteboard itemPath from list results and returns a compact view handle for subsequent actions.

Instructions

Open an itemPath returned by goodnotes_list; return a compact view handle.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "itemPath": "<itemPath>"
    },
    "name": "goodnotes_open"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemPathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.21.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by saying a compact view handle is returned, but does not explain what the handle is for, whether it expires, or how the open item relates to later object operations.

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?

One compact sentence with the action, required input provenance, and return value, front-loaded with no filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the essential input provenance and return shape. Only the array nature of itemPath and the lifecycle of the view handle are left unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does partly by indicating itemPath comes from goodnotes_list, but it does not explain that itemPath is an array (1-13 UUIDs) or what the element ordering means, leaving the schema structure undocumented in prose.

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?

States a specific verb (Open) and resource (an itemPath), and names goodnotes_list as the source, which distinguishes it from the sibling. It's clear what the tool does, though 'open' semantically is softened only by the returned view handle.

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 gives a real prerequisite: itemPath must be a value returned by goodnotes_list. Beyond that there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance versus other tools, so usage is only implied.

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