Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-apple-notes

mcp-apple-notes

by santiago-migoni
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_notes

Retrieve a list of Apple Notes with their IDs, titles, and modification dates, excluding trash. Specify a limit to control the number of results.

Instructions

Lista las notas de Notes.app (id, título y fecha de modificación), sin el contenido completo. No incluye notas en Recently Deleted.

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": "list_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoCantidad máxima de notas a devolver (default 50, máximo 200).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (id, title, modification date), excludes full content, and excludes deleted notes. This provides key behavioral context beyond the schema, but lacks details on auth, rate limits, or pagination.

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, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: first states what it does and the output fields, second clarifies what is excluded. 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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It clearly outlines the output scope and important exclusions (no full content, no deleted notes). No additional information 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?

The only parameter 'limit' is fully documented in the input schema (type, range, default, max). The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema coverage is 100%.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'notes', and specifies the returned fields (id, title, modification date) while excluding full content and Recently Deleted notes. This distinguishes it from siblings like read_note (full content) and search_notes (filtered results).

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?

The description implies usage context by stating what is returned and excluded, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling names (read_note, search_notes) provide implicit guidance. A clear 'use this when you need a summary list' would improve it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools