hedgedoc-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool performs a distinct function: create, read, update, metadata, session validation, and history. Even read_note and note_info are clearly separated by raw content vs. metadata.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use the 'hedgedoc_' prefix with clear verb_noun or noun_info naming in consistent snake_case. The pattern is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is a well-scoped set for a HedgeDoc server, covering core note operations plus session and history. No unnecessary duplication or bloat.
Completeness4/5
Core lifecycle (create, read, update) is present, along with metadata and history. Missing delete is a notable gap, and update's alias-only limitation creates a dead end for non-alias notes, but the overall surface is reasonably complete.
Average 4.4/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 6 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 16, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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

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 discloses the return type ('markdown as a plain string'), authentication requirements, and that it is a public access point. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a simple read operation this is adequate.
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 three concise sentences, each contributing unique information: the action, the return format, and the access control context. There is no repetition or filler, making it well-structured and 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (single param, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context: what it returns, how the ID is specified, and the public access nature. It could mention error cases or note existence, but overall it is complete for a straightforward read endpoint.
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 already fully documents the sole parameter (note_id) with examples of both ID and alias forms. The description adds no extra semantic depth for the parameter itself, so the schema's high coverage sets the baseline at 3.
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 action ('Fetch the raw markdown content'), the resource ('existing note'), and the identifier types ('by its ID or alias'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_note and update_note by focusing on read-only content retrieval.
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 provides useful context about being a public endpoint with no authentication required, which informs when it can be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use this tool over others like note_info or list_history, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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. It discloses the return JSON structure with types and ISO timestamp format, and states it requires no authentication. However, it does not explicitly confirm zero side effects, though 'Get' implies read-only.
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 compact three sentences: purpose, return format, and auth requirement. Every sentence conveys necessary information without redundancy, earning a maximum.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple single-parameter nature and absence of an output schema, the description generously covers what is returned. It also notes the public accessibility, leaving little ambiguity for an agent deciding to invoke it. The tool is simple enough that this is complete.
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 already fully describes the only parameter 'note_id' as 'Note ID or alias.' The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as format or examples, so baseline 3 applies given 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 uses a specific verb ('Get metadata') and clarifies the resource ('a note'). It also enumerates the exact fields returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like hedgedoc_read_note which presumably returns content.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, such as hedgedoc_read_note for content. It implies usage by focusing on metadata but offers no direct comparison or exclusions. The public endpoint note provides context about authentication but not when-not-to-use.
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, the description carries full burden. It discloses the auth requirement and error condition ('requires a valid session — will raise an error if not authenticated') and describes the return format in detail. It does not explicitly state read-only, but 'list' implies it. This is strong transparency for a simple read 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?
Two sentences: first states purpose, second covers return format and auth. Front-loaded and efficient with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return structure, and authentication requirements. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly without additional information.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no information. The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds value by detailing the output fields, which is acceptable.
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 'List the logged-in user's recently viewed and pinned notes', using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like create/read/update/note_info/whoami, as it focuses on history.
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 for retrieving recently viewed and pinned notes but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. No exclusions are mentioned, but the purpose is clear enough to imply when it is appropriate.
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, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature of full overwrite, the alias-only constraint, and failure mode for random-ID notes. It does not mention authentication or response semantics, but for a simple update operation, the key behavioral traits are well covered.
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 front-loaded with the main action, then follows with necessary caveats. The IMPORTANT notice is somewhat lengthy but each sentence provides essential warning information. It could be tightened slightly, but it's well-structured for a mutation tool with significant constraints.
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 complexity (alias-only update, full overwrite), the description covers the critical constraints and failure modes. There is no output schema, and the description doesn't explain the response shape, but that's not a major gap for a straightforward update. The main usage scenarios and pitfalls are clearly communicated.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces that note_id must be a custom alias and that content replaces the entire note, but it largely restates what is already in the schema descriptions, adding minimal extra semantic value beyond the structured fields.
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: 'Overwrite the entire content of an existing note.' It identifies the specific resource (note) and the action (full overwrite), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, read, and info by specifying this is an update operation with full-content replacement.
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?
Usage guidance is explicit: it specifies that this only works for notes created with a custom alias, and that random-ID notes cannot be updated via HTTP. It also states the call will fail for non-alias notes and that partial updates are not supported, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions.
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, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns JSON with user fields, indicating it's a read-only informational call. It also implies verification behavior by saying 'verify session is valid,' which is sufficient for a tool of this simplicity.
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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide usage context. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple: no parameters, no output schema. The description covers what it does, what it returns, and when to use it, making it complete.
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?
No parameters exist in the input schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no param detail, and none is needed.
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 function with specific verbs ('verify', 'return') and identifies the resource (current session, user profile). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hedgedoc_create_note and hedgedoc_read_note, which focus on notes, making it 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?
It explicitly advises calling this tool to confirm authentication before write operations or to identify the active account, providing a clear context of use. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the write-operation mention effectively differentiates from note-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
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 JSON return shape, the consequence of omitting alias (random ID, cannot be updated), and the server requirement (CMD_ALLOW_FREEURL=true). This is rich behavioral context beyond a mere 'create' statement.
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?
Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return info, then essential caveats. No redundant statements; every sentence contributes critical usage or behavioral detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter create tool with no output schema or annotations, the description fully covers purpose, return format, parameter semantics, limitations, and prerequisites. It is complete and self-sufficient.
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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the strategic implications of the alias parameter (update capability) and the FreeURL dependency, while content is straightforward.
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 opens with 'Create a new note on the HedgeDoc instance,' a specific verb+resource. It elaborates with return fields and differentiates from hedgedoc_update_note by explaining that alias-based notes can be overwritten while alias-less notes cannot be updated over HTTP.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use an alias ('if you intend to update this note later') and explicitly names the alternative tool (hedgedoc_update_note). It also discloses the server prerequisite (FreeURL mode), giving the agent clear criteria for effective use.
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:

[![hedgedoc-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mrsunglasses-experiments/hedgedoc-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mrsunglasses-experiments/hedgedoc-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![hedgedoc-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mrsunglasses-experiments/hedgedoc-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mrsunglasses-experiments/hedgedoc-mcp)

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/mrsunglasses-experiments/hedgedoc-mcp'

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