note-mcp

Log in to note.com with a browser

note_auth_login

Authenticate to note.com by opening a local Playwright browser login flow, saving cookies to the note-mcp config file. Designed for desktop/local agents; remote/headless servers use env or note_set_cookie.

Instructions

Opens a local Playwright browser login flow and saves note.com cookies to the note-mcp-community config file. Intended for desktop/local agents; remote/headless servers should use env or note_set_cookie.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "note_auth_login"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`headless`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the browser automation side effect and the persistent write to a config file, which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether existing cookies are overwritten, whether manual user interaction is required, or what happens on failure.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, then the intended environment and alternatives. Every sentence adds value with no 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 login-flow tool with no output schema and minimal parameters, the description is largely complete: it states what happens, where cookies are stored, and when to use alternatives. It falls short only by not explicitly describing success/failure return behavior or the headless parameter's effect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the single 'headless' boolean parameter. The passing phrase about 'remote/headless servers' is indirect and does not explain how the headless parameter behaves or what values are 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 uses a specific verb+resource structure: 'Opens a local Playwright browser login flow and saves note.com cookies to the note-mcp-community config file.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by naming the alternative (note_set_cookie) and specifying the local-browser scope.

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?

Explicit usage context is provided: 'Intended for desktop/local agents; remote/headless servers should use env or note_set_cookie.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and which alternatives to prefer in other environments.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.