Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GetNote MCP Server

GetNote MCP Server

by iswalle
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

upload_image

Uploads a local or Base64-encoded image to OSS and returns an image_url for creating image notes. Reuse the original operation_id when resuming to avoid duplicate uploads.

Instructions

保留已上传对象和同一笔记 client_request_id；保存遇限流不要重新上传。凭据敏感，不得放进聊天、日志或命令参数。任务 pending/processing 不等于完成。恢复仅查询原 operation_id，不能自动申请新 key。上传图片到 OSS。返回 image_url（用于创建图片笔记的 image_urls 参数）。

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mime_typeNo图片类型（如 png、jpg、jpeg），默认 pngpng
image_pathNo本地图片文件路径。出于安全考虑仅接受相对路径：不允许绝对路径（以 / 或 \ 开头）、不允许包含 ".." 的路径段、不允许 null byte。默认限制在当前工作目录内；若设置了环境变量 GETNOTE_MCP_ALLOWED_ROOT，则限制在指定目录内。符号链接解析后也不得离开该目录。
image_base64No图片的 Base64 编码数据（与 image_path 二选一）
operation_idNo可选的原上传操作标识；恢复时必须复用。仅服务器协商支持时可用，不支持时明确失败。

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.11.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / operation_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "可选的原上传操作标识；恢复时必须复用。仅服务器协商支持时可用，不支持时明确失败。",
+  "maxLength": 128,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "pattern": "^[A-Za-z0-9._:-]{1,128}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.10.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / image_path / description
      Previous value: -"本地图片文件路径"New value: +"本地图片文件路径。出于安全考虑仅接受相对路径：不允许绝对路径（以 / 或 \\ 开头）、不允许包含 \"..\" 的路径段、不允许 null byte。默认限制在当前工作目录内；若设置了环境变量 GETNOTE_MCP_ALLOWED_ROOT，则限制在指定目录内。符号链接解析后也不得离开该目录。"
  3. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses credential sensitivity, rate-limit retry behavior, status semantics, recovery constraints, and the return value. It still omits details such as authentication requirements, upload size limits, or overwrite behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Most sentences are useful and there is little empty wording, but the core purpose appears near the end after several warnings, and the opening clause about retaining the uploaded object and client_request_id is hard to parse. It is concise but not well front-loaded.

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 moderate-complexity upload tool with no output schema, the description explains the return value image_url and how it feeds image note creation, plus important retry and recovery caveats. It is complete enough to call correctly, though some operational limits remain unstated.

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 100%, so the schema already documents mime_type, image_path, image_base64, and operation_id. The description adds meaningful operation_id recovery semantics and warns against requesting a new key, going beyond the schema without needing to repeat field definitions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "上传图片到 OSS" (upload image to OSS), and it names the returned image_url and its downstream use. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from upload_knowledge_file, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives concrete operational guidance: do not re-upload when saving hits rate limiting, pending/processing does not mean done, and recovery must query the original operation_id rather than requesting a new key. It does not explicitly name get_upload_operation as the polling tool, leaving one routing detail implicit.

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