Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Goodnotes Web MCP

Goodnotes Web MCP

by hb442
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

goodnotes_plan_batch

Save a validated batch plan of Goodnotes actions without changing notebooks, with typed references to earlier results for later execution.

Instructions

Save a concrete batch plan without changing Goodnotes. Use batch_help for the fields of up to three action types. Steps are flat objects with action plus its fields; all are strictly validated before saving. Typed references to verified earlier results are supported. Run separately; private inputs persist locally.

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "steps": "<steps>"
    },
    "name": "goodnotes_plan_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stepsYes
titleYes
backupNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.21.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that nothing in Goodnotes is changed, that all steps are strictly validated before saving, and that private inputs persist locally. That is genuine behavioral context the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags do not convey. It leaves openWorldHint and what happens on validation failure unaddressed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and kept to short declarative sentences with no filler. 'Run separately' is terse to the point of ambiguity about what is run and by whom.

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?

For a three-param, no-output-schema planning tool this covers the essentials of shape and validation but omits backup semantics, what the save returns, and the meaning of 'verified earlier results'. An agent could call it, but would be guessing on the backup flag.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load; it explains that steps are flat objects of 'action plus its fields' and that typed references to earlier results are supported, which is useful. However the 'backup' parameter (default true) and 'title' constraints are never mentioned, so coverage of the three params is incomplete.

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 and resource ('Save a concrete batch plan') and immediately scopes it ('without changing Goodnotes'), which separates it from the execution siblings. It does not name goodnotes_run_batch directly, so the plan-vs-run distinction is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Points the agent to goodnotes_batch_help for action field shapes and warns 'Run separately', which implies this tool only plans and another executes. It never names the execution tool or states when planning is unnecessary, leaving the workflow to inference.

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