Skip to main content
Glama

open_tag

Display all Bear notes with a specific tag by entering the tag name to filter and organize your notes efficiently.

Instructions

Open Bear and show all notes with a specific tag

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagYesTag name (without # prefix)

Implementation Reference

  • The actual implementation of the open_tag tool logic, which constructs a Bear x-callback-url and invokes it.
    def open_tag(tag: str) -> dict[str, str]:
        """
        Open Bear and show all notes with a specific tag.
    
        Args:
            tag: Tag name (without # prefix)
    
        Returns:
            Dictionary with operation result
        """
        params = {"name": tag}
    
        query_string = urllib.parse.urlencode(params)
        url = f"bear://x-callback-url/open-tag?{query_string}"
    
        return _open_bear_url(url)
  • Registration of the open_tag tool including its name, description, and input schema.
    Tool(
        name="open_tag",
        description="Open Bear and show all notes with a specific tag",
        inputSchema={
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {
                "tag": {
                    "type": "string",
                    "description": "Tag name (without # prefix)",
                },
            },
            "required": ["tag"],
        },
    ),
  • The handler logic within the MCP server that routes the 'open_tag' tool call to the corresponding implementation function.
    elif name == "open_tag":
        if not isinstance(arguments, dict) or "tag" not in arguments:
            raise ValueError("Missing required argument: tag")
    
        result = open_tag(tag=arguments["tag"])
        return [TextContent(type="text", text=str(result))]
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions opening Bear and showing notes, implying a read-only operation, but fails to detail aspects like whether this triggers a UI action, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output expectations, which are needed for a mutation-like tool (opening an application). This results in a minimal viable score.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'tag' parameter clearly documented as 'Tag name (without # prefix)'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying the tag is used for filtering notes. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Open Bear and show all notes') and the resource ('with a specific tag'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_notes_by_tag' or 'search_bear', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_notes_by_tag' or 'open_note'. It lacks explicit instructions on prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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/maxim-ist/mcp-bear'

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