Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Goodnotes Web MCP

Goodnotes Web MCP

by hb442
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

goodnotes_status

Read-only

Verify the isolated Goodnotes login and list documents explicitly writable through the server.

Instructions

Check the isolated Goodnotes login and list explicitly writable documents.

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_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.21.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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 that the login check is "isolated" and that document writability is called out "explicitly", which is modest but genuine scope context; it still says nothing about failure modes or whether the check touches the network.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, so the terseness costs a little clarity but not structure.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what a status call returns, and it only partially does so (mentions writable documents but not login-state detail). For a simple read-only, parameterless tool this is close to adequate but leaves the return shape ambiguous.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a parameterless schema applies. The phrase "explicitly writable documents" usefully scopes the result set even though no inputs exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb-plus-resource combination ("Check ... login and list ... documents") is parseable, but "isolated Goodnotes login" is internal jargon that does not tell an agent what is actually verified. It also fails to distinguish this tool from the many sibling status tools such as goodnotes_sync_status or goodnotes_operation_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to call this rather than one of the numerous sibling *_status tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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