Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Goodnotes Web MCP

Goodnotes Web MCP

by hb442
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

goodnotes_sync_status

Read-only

Reports visible web connectivity and sync messages to help users check notebook sync status; it cannot confirm delivery to another device or force iPad synchronization.

Instructions

Report visible Web connectivity/sync messages. Cannot confirm delivery to another device or force iPad synchronization.

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_sync_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.21.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral limits beyond that: it only shows visible messages and cannot confirm delivery to another device or force iPad synchronization, which prevents an agent from over-trusting the output.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded before the caveats. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves the return content and the url parameter unaddressed.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the description gives an adequate sketch of what is returned ('visible Web connectivity/sync messages'). It omits any explanation of the url parameter and does not describe the shape or granularity of the reported messages.

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?

There is one optional 'url' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains what it scopes. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 concrete verb and resource: reporting visible Web connectivity/sync messages. The follow-up sentence narrows scope by declaring what the tool cannot do, which helps separate it from status siblings, though it does not name any specific 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated – an agent can infer this is for checking what sync messages are visible in the web client. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer goodnotes_status, goodnotes_operation_status, or goodnotes_batch_status over this tool, and no prerequisites are given.

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