Skip to main content
Glama
iangray001

applenotes-mcp

by iangray001

read_note

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve an Apple Note as markdown to inspect or edit it, preserving checklists, headings, lists, tables, and file attachments exactly as stored in the original note.

Instructions

Read a note as markdown, for inspecting or editing it.

Reconstructed from Notes' own protobuf, so checklists come back with their ticked state, and a numbered list is not confused with a bullet list -- neither of which the HTML AppleScript exports can express. Tables are taken from the HTML, since the protobuf holds them only as a placeholder. File attachments (images, PDFs) come back as ![name](file://...) / [name](file://...) pointing at the file on disk.

Heading depth is preserved through ##; only ### and deeper are flattened (to ##), and that is a write-side loss, not a read-side one -- ### Foo was already stored as a Heading. # is Apple's Title style, so the note's own title reads back as # <title>.

Falls back to the HTML alone if the protobuf cannot be read, which loses checklists; edit_note refuses to run in that state rather than rewrite from a degraded read.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
note_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description discloses rich behavioral context: how checklists and numbered lists are preserved via protobuf reconstruction, how tables are sourced from HTML, how attachments are returned as file:// links, heading depth flattening behavior, and the degraded HTML fallback mode. It even explains the internally-consistent detail that edit_note won't rewrite from a degraded read.

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?

The description is substantial but every paragraph earns its place with concrete behavioral facts. It's front-loaded with the core purpose first ('Read a note as markdown'), then dives into specifics. Slightly dense but efficient—unusual formatting details (code backticks, em-dashes) serve clarity for an agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is an output schema (meaning the description needn't explain return values), the description covers the key edge cases: protobuf vs HTML reconstruction, why HTML exports are inferior, heading depth flattening, attachment handling, and the fallback degradation state. For a read tool with one parameter, this is highly complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% with only one parameter (note_id). The description doesn't explicitly describe note_id's format, but for a single obvious resource identifier, the description's extensive context about behavior largely compensates. The high behavioral detail offsets the lack of explicit parameter documentation, though it could mention what note_id format is expected.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states the tool reads a note as markdown for inspecting or editing, with a specific verb+resource+format. It distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing the markdown reconstruction approach and explaining how it differs from edit_note's requirements.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly explains when this tool is appropriate (for inspecting or editing a note) and contrasts it with edit_note, noting edit_note refuses to run when the protobuf cannot be read. It provides clear context about fallback behavior and the read-side vs write-side loss distinction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/iangray001/applenotes-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server