Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AI Notes MCP Server

AI Notes MCP Server

by ibrahimbelkahla
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Search notes

search_notes
Read-only

Find notes by keyword and rank results by relevance—title matches first, then tags, then content.

Instructions

Find notes by keywords. Results are ranked by relevance (matches in the title count most, then tags, then content).

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of results
queryYesKeywords to search for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's real contribution is the ranking model — title matches weigh most, then tags, then content — which is non-obvious behavior an agent needs to interpret result order. It stops short of describing matching semantics (fuzzy vs exact, case handling) or what an empty result looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no waste, with the core action front-loaded before the ranking detail. Everything stated earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and result ordering adequately. Minor gaps remain around query tokenization and retrieving results beyond the limit cap, which an agent might need in practice.

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 100%, so both query and limit are already explained; the description adds only indirect meaning by explaining what makes a match rank highly. It does not clarify query syntax (multiple keywords, boolean, phrase) or how to page past the limit cap of 50.

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?

"Find notes by keywords" states a specific verb (find) and resource (notes), and 'by keywords' scopes it to text matching. It is distinguishable from get_note and list_notes by implication, but the description never names those siblings or contrasts the retrieval modes explicitly.

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?

The use case (keyword lookup) is implied clearly enough that an agent would pick this over get_note, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over list_notes or when it is inappropriate (e.g., browsing by recency, exact-ID lookup).

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