RemNote MCP Server

by robert7

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

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: append_journal targets daily documents, create/read/update_note handle note lifecycle operations, search finds notes, and status checks connectivity. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection unambiguous for an agent.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'remnote_verb_noun' pattern with snake_case throughout (e.g., remnote_append_journal, remnote_create_note). The naming is predictable and adheres to a uniform convention without any deviations.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing a knowledge base like RemNote. It covers core operations (create, read, update, search) plus specialized functions (append_journal, status), avoiding bloat while ensuring each tool earns its place.
Completeness4/5
The toolset provides strong CRUD coverage for notes and search, with additional utilities for journaling and status checks. A minor gap exists in note deletion functionality, but agents can work around this by updating notes or using other methods, and the core workflows are well-supported.
Average 3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 8 of 8 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 30 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 17, 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

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 states the action ('Append content') but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, what happens if today's daily document doesn't exist (does it create one?), whether the append is atomic, or what the response looks like. The description is minimal and lacks operational 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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.
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 insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens when invoked (success/failure responses), doesn't mention authentication requirements, and doesn't clarify edge cases like missing daily documents. For a tool that modifies data, more operational context is needed.
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 both parameters ('content' and 'timestamp'). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'content' but provides no additional context about format, length, or special handling. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Append content') and target resource ('today's daily document in RemNote'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'remnote_update_note' which might also modify documents, but the specific focus on 'today's daily document' provides some differentiation.
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 when this tool is appropriate versus 'remnote_update_note' for modifying documents, 'remnote_create_note' for creating new documents, or 'remnote_read_note' for reading documents. 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.
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 offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool creates a note but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 and lists optional parameters without unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (e.g., note ID, success confirmation), error handling, or behavioral nuances like whether duplicate titles are allowed. Given the complexity of a 4-parameter mutation, more context is needed.
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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by listing optional parameters (content, parent, tags) but doesn't explain semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as how parentId relates to RemNote structure or tag formatting.
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 resource ('in RemNote'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'remnote_update_note' by specifying creation rather than modification, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives like 'remnote_append_journal'.
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 'remnote_update_note' for modifying existing notes or 'remnote_append_journal' for journal-specific operations. It mentions optional parameters but gives no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads a note, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., structured data or raw text). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and 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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the tool's function and key input, resulting in zero waste.
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 reading a note (which could involve permissions, data formats, or errors) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (e.g., note content, metadata, or error messages), authentication needs, or potential limitations. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed to ensure 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 input schema fully documents both parameters ('remId' and 'depth') with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what a 'Rem ID' is or providing examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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 ('Read') and resource ('a specific note from RemNote'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies the key identifier ('by its Rem ID'), which distinguishes it from other read operations that might use different identifiers. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remnote_search' or 'remnote_status', which could also involve reading 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'remnote_search' for finding notes, or how it relates to 'remnote_status' for system information. There's no context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing Rem ID, or exclusions for when other tools might be more appropriate.
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 states the basic function but lacks critical details: no mention of search algorithm (full-text, fuzzy, etc.), performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with empty/no results. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns (note metadata, full content, relevance scores), how results are ordered, or any limitations. The agent would need to guess about the output format and search behavior.
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 three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Search') and resource ('RemNote knowledge base for notes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling search tools (none are listed as siblings, but this could be relevant if there were multiple search variants).
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 'remnote_read_note' or 'remnote_update_note'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases for searching versus direct note access.
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. It states the tool updates an existing note but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields (e.g., does it overwrite or merge?). 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update an existing note in RemNote') and specifies key operations. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage hints or behavioral details.
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 complexity (mutation with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, doesn't explain return values (since no output schema), and provides minimal parameter guidance beyond the schema. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters (remId, title, appendContent, addTags, removeTags) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing actions ('change title, append content, or modify tags'), which loosely maps to parameters but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb ('update') and resource ('existing note in RemNote') with specific actions ('change title, append content, or modify tags'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'remnote_create_note' (create vs. update) and 'remnote_read_note' (read vs. update), though it doesn't explicitly mention all siblings. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated.
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., needing an existing note ID), exclusions (e.g., not for creating new notes), or comparisons to siblings like 'remnote_append_journal' (which might be for journal-specific updates). Usage is implied by the verb 'update' but lacks explicit 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks status and statistics but does not describe what specific statistics are returned, whether it performs network calls, or any error conditions. This leaves significant 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 front-loads the purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool and communicates the essential information clearly.
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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on what statistics are returned and behavioral context, which would be helpful for an agent to understand the tool's output and usage fully. It meets the minimum viable standard but has clear gaps.
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 the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no need for parameter documentation. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information.
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 ('Check') and the target ('connection status and statistics of the RemNote MCP bridge'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform CRUD operations on notes. It precisely communicates what the tool does without being vague 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. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone. This lack of explicit guidance reduces its effectiveness in tool selection.
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:

[![remnote-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/robert7/remnote-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/robert7/remnote-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![remnote-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/robert7/remnote-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/robert7/remnote-mcp-server)

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/robert7/remnote-mcp-server'

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