Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Goodnotes Web MCP

Goodnotes Web MCP

by hb442
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

goodnotes_study_revision_status

Read-only

Reads saved revision progress, backups, selected changes, source impact, previews, and stable block IDs for study planning; optional content returns saved text, not fresh manual edits.

Instructions

Read saved revision progress, backup, selected changes, source impact, previews and stable managed block IDs. includeContent adds saved text for planning; saved content is not a fresh read of manual edits.

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": {
      "revisionId": "<revisionId>"
    },
    "name": "goodnotes_study_revision_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
revisionIdYes
includeContentNo

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?

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description is not burdened with restating safety. It adds a meaningful caveat that saved content is not a fresh read of manual edits, which signals staleness, and it lists the returned artifacts. It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but those are less critical for a read-only status tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then a parameter caveat; there is no filler. The returned-artifact list is long but each item appears intended to inform the agent about what is available.

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 two-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the description lists the kinds of data returned and explains the optional content flag. It still lacks guidance on where revisionId comes from and how this status tool relates to the prepare/plan/review/run revision siblings, so it is not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains includeContent well (adds saved text for planning, with a stale-content caveat), but says nothing about revisionId beyond the schema's UUID type and required status. That leaves the required identifier underspecified.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('saved revision progress') and enumerates the artifacts returned (backup, selected changes, source impact, previews, stable managed block IDs). It is distinguishable from the plan/prepare/review/run siblings by its saved-status/read focus, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

It implies usage for inspecting a saved revision and notes that includeContent is for planning, but it gives no explicit when-to-use versus the plan/prepare/review/run sibling tools or when not to use it. The guidance is present but inferential.

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