Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
NoteKing MCP

NoteKing MCP

by leouofa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

noteking_upload_attachment

Attach files to a NoteKing note by uploading local file paths or base64-encoded content, so notes can include supporting documents and images.

Instructions

Upload one or more files to attach to a note in NoteKing (accepts local file paths or base64 data)

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": {
      "note_id": "<note_id>",
      "files": "<files>"
    },
    "name": "noteking_upload_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filesYesFiles to attach (path on disk or base64 content)
note_idYesUnique identifier of the note

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses accepted input modes (local path or base64). It says nothing about what happens to existing attachments, duplicate filename handling, size limits, permission requirements, or whether the upload is reversible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a compact parenthetical; nothing is padded. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why behavior and workflow context are thin.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke it. However, with no annotations and no output schema, an agent gets no information about the returned attachment metadata needed to chain into list/delete operations.

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 note_id, path, filename, content_type, and content_base64 are already fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'local file paths or base64 data' merely echoes the schema baseline.

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 specific verb ('Upload') and resource ('files to attach to a note'), plus accepted input forms. It is clearly distinct from siblings like noteking_list_attachments and noteking_delete_attachment, though it never names them.

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 only implied: an agent can infer it needs a note_id and at least one file, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to list_attachments to check existing attachments first.

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