Bear MCP Server

by philgetzen

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: add_text modifies note content, check_bear_setup handles configuration, create_note and get_note manage note lifecycle, get_tags retrieves metadata, search_notes finds notes, and set_bear_token handles authentication. The descriptions make it easy to distinguish between them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: add_text, check_bear_setup, create_note, get_note, get_tags, search_notes, set_bear_token. The naming is predictable and readable throughout the set.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, this is well-scoped for a Bear note-taking server. It covers core operations (create, read, update via add_text, search) and necessary setup/authentication without being overwhelming or too sparse.
Completeness4/5
The toolset provides strong coverage for note management: create, read, update (via add_text), search, and tag retrieval. Minor gaps include no explicit delete_note or update_note (beyond add_text), but agents can work around this, and the surface supports core workflows effectively.
Average 3.1/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
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
- Last stable release on June 4, 2025
- 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

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 the tool creates a note and returns an ID, but omits critical details: whether this requires authentication, if there are rate limits, what happens on failure, or if the note is saved immediately. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 front-loads the core action ('Create a new note') and includes the key outcome ('return its ID'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word earns its place by specifying the tool's purpose and result.
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?
Given the complexity of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or what the returned ID can be used for. The schema covers parameters well, but the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking.
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 fully documents the three parameters (title, text, tags). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles all parameter semantics.
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 ('Create a new note') and the resource ('in Bear'), with a specific outcome ('return its ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_text' or 'search_notes' by focusing on creation rather than modification or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'set_bear_token' is unrelated).
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 like 'add_text' (which might append to existing notes) or 'search_notes' (for finding notes). It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., authentication via 'set_bear_token') or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the note doesn't exist, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for safe invocation.
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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'content' includes (e.g., text, metadata), error conditions, or how to handle the id/title parameters effectively. For a retrieval tool with no annotations, more context is needed for reliable use.
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 ('id' and 'title') with their descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying retrieval of a 'specific note', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra syntax, format details, or usage examples.
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 ('Get') and resource ('content of a specific note'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_notes' or 'get_tags', but it's not misleading or tautological.
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 like 'search_notes' or 'create_note'. It mentions retrieving a 'specific note' but doesn't clarify if this requires knowing the exact ID/title versus searching. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'requires token', indicating an authentication need, which is useful context beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on other behavioral traits, such as whether the search is case-sensitive, how results are paginated or sorted, what metadata is included, or any rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in a single sentence: 'Search for notes and return results with metadata'. The additional note '(requires token)' is brief and relevant. There's no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes into a distinct part.
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?
Given the complexity of a search operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions authentication but omits critical details like the format of returned metadata, error handling, or search scope. For a tool that returns results, the lack of output schema means the description should compensate by explaining return values, which it doesn't do, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('term' and 'tag'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how the parameters interact (e.g., if 'tag' narrows the search) or providing examples. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema adequately documents the parameters without extra value from the description.
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: 'Search for notes and return results with metadata'. It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('notes'), and output ('results with metadata'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't differentiate this search tool from potential alternatives among its siblings, such as 'get_note' or 'get_tags', which might also retrieve note-related data.
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 minimal guidance: it mentions 'requires token', which hints at an authentication prerequisite but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_note' (which fetches a single note) or 'get_tags' (which retrieves tags). There's no explicit advice on when to use it, when not to, or what makes it distinct from sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool checks configuration and tests connection, implying a read-only diagnostic operation, but doesn't specify what 'properly configured' entails, what happens on success/failure (e.g., returns status vs. throws error), or any side effects (e.g., logging). This leaves 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 with the core functionality ('Check if Bear is properly configured') and adds a clarifying detail ('and test the connection'). Every part of the sentence contributes value.
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?
Given the tool's diagnostic nature (checking configuration and connection), the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to clarify safety or behavior, and there's no output schema to indicate what results are returned (e.g., success status, error details). The description should specify what constitutes a proper configuration or what the test entails to be fully helpful for an agent.
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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't miss any parameter-related information.
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: 'Check if Bear is properly configured and test the connection.' It uses specific verbs ('check', 'test') and identifies the target resource (Bear setup/connection). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_bear_token' which might also involve configuration aspects.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether Bear must be installed first), nor does it suggest when to use it over sibling tools like 'set_bear_token' for configuration issues or 'search_notes' for connectivity testing through data retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 authentication requirement ('requires token') which is valuable, but doesn't describe what 'Get all tags' actually means operationally - whether this returns all tags in the system, tags for current user, pagination behavior, or format of returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 extremely concise - just 6 words total. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get all tags from Bear') followed by the crucial prerequisite information ('requires token'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or wasted space.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that presumably returns data (tags), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what format the tags come in, whether this is a read-only operation, what scope of tags are returned, or any error conditions. For a data retrieval tool with zero structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
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 ('Get all tags') and resource ('from Bear'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_notes' or 'get_note', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.
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 mentions 'requires token' which provides some context about prerequisites, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_notes' or how it relates to other tag-related operations. There's no explicit when/when-not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 describes the action ('Set the Bear app token') and provides token acquisition instructions, but it doesn't disclose key behavioral traits such as whether this is a one-time setup, if it persists across sessions, what happens on invalid tokens, or any rate limits. For a configuration tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 concise and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides actionable instructions. Every sentence earns its place by delivering essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and front-loaded for quick understanding.
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 simple configuration tool with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and token acquisition, but it lacks details on behavioral aspects like persistence, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. For a setup tool, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent on usage context.
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 parameter 'token' documented as 'Your Bear app token.' The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing the token's purpose ('for accessing existing notes') and providing acquisition instructions, but it doesn't add syntax or format details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description offers slight contextual enhancement.
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 with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('Bear app token'), and it explains the token is for 'accessing existing notes.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'check_bear_setup' or explain why setting a token is separate from other operations.
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 when to use this tool by stating it's for 'accessing existing notes' and providing instructions on how to obtain the token, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., before calling other tools like 'get_note' or 'search_notes') or mention any prerequisites. The guidance is practical but lacks explicit context about timing or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a mutating operation (implied but not explicit), what happens if the note doesn't exist, whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, or rate limits. For a tool that modifies data without annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should address behavioral aspects like error conditions (e.g., invalid note ID), what the operation returns, and whether it's idempotent. The current description provides only basic operational intent without necessary context for safe invocation.
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 all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (like explaining the 'mode' enum choices or interaction between 'id' and 'title'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('append or prepend text') and target resource ('to an existing note'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_note (creates new notes) and get_note (reads notes). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
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 'to an existing note', suggesting it should not be used for creating new notes (use create_note instead). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose append vs. prepend modes or alternatives like replace operations, and doesn't mention prerequisites like note existence verification.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![bear-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/philgetzen/bear-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/philgetzen/bear-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/philgetzen/bear-mcp'

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