Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
NoteKing MCP

NoteKing MCP

by leouofa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

noteking_render_markdown

Convert Markdown text into sanitized GitHub-flavored HTML to safely display formatted notes, documentation, and README content.

Instructions

Render Markdown text to sanitized HTML using NoteKing's GitHub-flavored markdown pipeline

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "noteking_render_markdown"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesMarkdown text to render into sanitized GitHub Flavored HTML

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two meaningful traits — the output is sanitized and the pipeline is GitHub-flavored — but says nothing about what sanitization strips (raw HTML? scripts? style attributes?), whether the call has side effects, whether the input is persisted, or size/rate limits. For an unannotated tool this is thin.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

The tool is simple (one required string, no nesting, no output schema), and the sentence does imply the return is an HTML string. However, with no output schema the description should confirm the return shape and note sanitization boundaries, since callers need to know whether their Markdown constructs will survive rendering.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'text' fully. The description's phrasing ('Markdown text', 'GitHub-flavored') mirrors the schema wording rather than adding new meaning such as size limits or whether raw HTML passthrough is permitted. Baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Render Markdown text to sanitized HTML.' That is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the CRUD siblings (create/update/delete note, project, attachment), none of which render content. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it is not, so a 5 is not warranted.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether to call this before previewing a note, when composing content, or whether the caller should instead store raw Markdown via noteking_update_note. The only implied usage is 'you have Markdown and want HTML,' which the name already conveys.

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