note-mcp

Publish note.com draft

note_publish_draft

Publish a draft note to note.com by its key. Fetches the draft and publishes it, returning status, note URL, and publication details.

Instructions

Publicly publishes a draft by note key. Internally fetches draft detail via /v3/notes/{noteKey}?draft=true, then publishes with PUT /v1/text_notes/{id}. The saved draft body is sent to note.com as editor HTML; Markdown is not converted during publish. By default returns an LLM-friendly summary with status/key/noteUrl/eyecatch/publishedAt; pass responseFormat: "full" for the raw API payload.

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": {
      "noteKey": "<noteKey>"
    },
    "name": "note_publish_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`noteKey`	Yes
`responseFormat`	No		summary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels. It discloses internal fetch/publish sequence, the crucial fact that Markdown is not converted (saved body sent as editor HTML), and the response format options (summary vs full). This gives the agent essential behavioral expectations without any annotation support.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then essential internals, then response behavior. No wasted words; each sentence adds critical 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?

Given two params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It explains the default return summary and how to get the raw payload, plus a key transformation caveat. It does not describe error cases or post-publish state (e.g., whether draft remains), but this is not essential for invocation, so it is adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the responseFormat parameter in detail ('pass responseFormat: "full" for the raw API payload') and implies the role of noteKey. While noteKey's semantic is left implicit, the description adds meaningful context for responseFormat, which the schema enum alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific action ('Publicly publishes a draft') with a clear resource ('by note key'). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like note_create_draft or note_delete_draft, whose purposes are 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?

Provides clear context: this is the tool for publishing a draft to make it public. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the description and sibling tool names, so it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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