MCP Notes

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, such as create_directory for directory creation, read_note for reading single notes, and rollup for synthesizing daily notes. However, there is some overlap between read_note and read_multiple_notes, as the latter could be seen as a batch version of the former, potentially causing confusion in tool selection for agents.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming conventions are mixed, with most tools using snake_case (e.g., create_directory, list_directory) and one using camelCase (evaluateInsight). This inconsistency reduces predictability, but the names are still generally readable and descriptive of their functions.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the count is well-scoped for a notes management server. Each tool serves a clear purpose, such as file operations (create, read, write), directory management, searching, and synthesis, making the set comprehensive without being overwhelming.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core CRUD operations for notes and directories, including creation, reading, writing, listing, and searching. A minor gap exists in the lack of explicit update or delete tools for notes, though write_note can overwrite and tools like log might handle updates, which agents could work around.
Average 3.8/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'create or update' which implies mutation, but doesn't specify whether this overwrites existing logs, merges content, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. The description lacks crucial behavioral context for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is appropriately concise with two clear sentences. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second sentence about 'optionally' adding notes contradicts the schema's required parameters, which creates inefficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 2 required parameters, 50% schema coverage, and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'today's daily log file' means (format, location, naming convention), what 'create or update' entails behaviorally, or what happens when the tool executes.
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 50% (only 'tags' has a description). The description mentions 'Optionally add notes to the log' which implies the 'notes' parameter is optional, but the schema shows it as required. This creates confusion. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's in the schema, not compensating for the coverage gap.
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 tool's purpose: 'Create or update today's daily log file' specifies the verb (create/update) and resource (today's daily log file). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'write_note' by focusing specifically on daily logs rather than general notes. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'rollup' which might also aggregate content.
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. There's no mention of when to choose 'log' over 'write_note' or 'rollup', nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 does well by describing important behavioral traits: the tool's purpose (synthesis), quality criteria ('only include notes that actually add long-term value'), fallback behavior ('call /evaluateInsight tool'), and error handling ('stop and ask the user for more information'). It also provides a philosophical guideline ('better to not log anything than log something that is not useful').
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?
The description is appropriately sized (4 sentences) but could be better structured. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the remaining sentences mix usage guidelines, quality criteria, and behavioral instructions without clear separation. Some sentences like 'It is better to not log anything than log something that is not useful' could be more concise.
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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good behavioral context but insufficient parameter guidance. It covers the 'why' and 'how' of using the tool but doesn't adequately explain what the input arrays should contain beyond what's in the schema. The description would benefit from more detail about expected output format since there's no output schema.
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 description mentions only one parameter ('Optionally specify a date (YYYY-MM-DD)') while the schema has 4 parameters with 75% description coverage. The description doesn't explain the semantics of 'accomplishments', 'insights', or 'todos' arrays that are documented in the schema. With schema coverage at 75%, the baseline is 3, and the description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the schema.
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 tool's purpose: 'Synthesize my daily note to create an organized rollup of the most important notes with clear categories, connections, and action items.' This specifies the verb (synthesize), resource (daily note), and output format (organized rollup). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'log' or 'write_note' that might also handle notes.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: for synthesizing daily notes into organized rollups. It explicitly mentions an alternative tool ('/evaluateInsight') for evaluating long-term value of thoughts. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use this tool versus other note-related siblings like 'log' or 'write_note'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context beyond the input schema by mentioning the ability to 'create nested directories in one operation,' which clarifies a behavioral trait (batch creation). However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling (e.g., if the directory already exists), or what happens upon success, leaving gaps in transparency for a mutation tool.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that directly convey the tool's function and key details (nested creation and path relativity). Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and usage context but lacks information on behavioral outcomes (e.g., what is returned or any side effects). For a create operation, this leaves room for improvement in providing a fuller picture to the agent.
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 'path' parameter fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value by reiterating that the path is 'relative to notes directory,' which is already stated in the schema description. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('new directory in your notes'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_directory, search_files, or write_note. It specifies the scope (notes directory) and capability (nested directories in one operation), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.
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?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool by stating it creates directories 'in your notes' and that the path is 'relative to your notes directory,' which implicitly suggests usage for organizing notes. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., using write_note for files instead of directories), so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 describes key behaviors: creation/overwriting of notes, path relativity, and tag merging. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or what happens on conflicts (e.g., if the note already has different content). This is adequate but has clear gaps for a mutation tool.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by essential details about path and tags. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 3 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and key parameters but lacks information on return values, error cases, or system constraints. This is the minimum viable for such a tool, with clear room for improvement.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that tags are 'merged with any existing tags in the note,' which provides semantic context beyond the schema's technical rules. However, it does not explain parameter interactions or default behaviors, keeping it from a perfect score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a new note or overwrite an existing note') and resource ('note with content'), distinguishing it from siblings like read_note, read_multiple_notes, and search_files. It explicitly mentions both creation and overwriting behavior, which is precise and actionable.
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 description implies usage by specifying 'Path should be relative to your notes directory' and mentions tags merging, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_directory or log. There is no guidance on prerequisites, error conditions, or exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat vague.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the evaluation criteria and what to ignore, which adds behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what the tool returns (e.g., a score, summary, or error handling). For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this is a moderate gap.
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 well-structured with bullet points for criteria and insights to ignore, making it easy to scan. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words or unnecessary details.
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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the evaluation logic and exclusions well, but lacks details on parameter meanings for half the inputs and does not describe the output format. This is adequate for basic understanding but has clear gaps for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 8 parameters. It explains the evaluation criteria (actionability, longevity, findability, future reference value) which maps to 4 parameters, but does not clarify the semantics of 'thought', 'evaluationStep', 'totalSteps', or 'nextStepNeeded'. This leaves half the parameters undocumented, failing to fully compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Evaluate the long-term value and significance of an insight or thought based on the following criteria...' It specifies the verb (evaluate) and resource (insight/thought) with detailed criteria, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'log' or 'write_note' which handle different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool by listing criteria for evaluation and specifying insights to ignore (e.g., 'Trivial syntax details', 'Redundant information'). This helps differentiate it from alternatives like 'log' for general logging or 'write_note' for recording information without evaluation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 describes the output ('Shows all files and directories with clear labels') and the path handling, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or format specifics. This is adequate but has gaps for a tool with no annotations.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential details in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete, covering purpose, usage, and output behavior. However, it lacks explicit error cases or return format details, which slightly reduces completeness for a tool with no structured output schema.
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, so the schema already documents the 'path' parameter thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by reiterating the path specification with examples, but does not provide additional syntax or constraints beyond what the schema states, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List the contents of a directory') and resource ('in your notes'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_note or search_files. It specifies what is shown ('all files and directories with clear labels'), making the purpose explicit and 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?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Specify path relative to your notes directory') and implies usage for browsing directory contents. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like search_files for filtering, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the batch read behavior and return format (content with paths), but lacks details on error handling (e.g., missing files), permissions, or performance implications. It adds some value but not comprehensive behavioral context.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage details and return format in two efficient sentences. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.
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 simple read tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete—covering purpose, usage, and return values. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details like error cases.
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 the schema already documents the 'paths' parameter fully. The description adds marginal value by providing an example path format (e.g., ['Log/2023-01-01.md', 'Rollups/2023-01-01-rollup.md']), but doesn't explain semantics beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Read the contents of multiple note files simultaneously') and resource ('note files'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'read_note' (singular) and 'search_files' (searching). It explicitly mentions the batch operation aspect.
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?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool (for reading multiple files at once) and includes an example path format, but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'read_note' for single files or 'search_files' for filtered content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation type (read), what it returns ('full text content'), and the path requirement. However, it doesn't mention error behaviors (e.g., if file doesn't exist), performance characteristics, or any limitations like file size constraints.
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, zero waste. First sentence states purpose and parameter, second sentence states return value. Front-loaded with essential information, appropriately sized for a simple read operation.
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 simple read operation with 1 parameter (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameter usage, and return value. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral context like error handling.
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 the schema already fully documents the 'path' parameter. The description adds an example ('e.g., 'Log/2023-01-01.md'') which provides helpful context, but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Read the complete contents'), resource ('a note file from your notes directory'), and scope ('complete contents', 'full text content'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_multiple_notes' (single vs. multiple) and 'write_note' (read vs. write).
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?
The description provides clear context about when to use it ('Read the complete contents of a note file') and includes an example path format. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'read_multiple_notes' for bulk operations or 'search_files' for finding notes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes key traits: the search is recursive, case-insensitive, matches partial names, and returns full paths. It does not mention potential limitations like performance impacts on large directories or file system permissions, but covers the core behavior well for a search tool.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence covering the core functionality and subsequent sentences adding useful details without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying behavior and usage, making it efficient and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with two parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, how it behaves, and when to use it. However, it lacks details on output format beyond 'full paths' (e.g., structure or error handling), slightly reducing completeness.
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 the schema already documents both parameters (pattern and excludePatterns). The description adds some context by mentioning 'pattern' and 'partial names', but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('search for files and directories') and resources ('in your notes directory'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_directory (which lists without searching) or read_note (which reads specific files). It specifies the search is recursive and matches patterns, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Great for finding notes when you don't know their exact location'), which implicitly suggests alternatives like list_directory for browsing or read_note for known files. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, keeping it at a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-notes MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mikeysrecipes/mcp-notes/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mikeysrecipes/mcp-notes)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-notes MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mikeysrecipes/mcp-notes/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mikeysrecipes/mcp-notes)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/mikeysrecipes/mcp-notes'

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