Notes MCP Server

by sayranovv

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

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: create, delete, list, read, search, and update notes. The descriptions reinforce these distinctions, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool for any note-related operation without confusion.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., create_note, delete_note, list_notes). This uniformity enhances readability and predictability, allowing agents to easily infer functionality from the naming convention.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing notes, covering essential CRUD operations and additional utilities like search. Each tool earns its place without being excessive or insufficient for the domain, aligning with typical small to medium-sized tool sets.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete CRUD coverage (create, read, update, delete) along with listing and search capabilities, ensuring no dead ends for note management. There are no obvious gaps, as all core lifecycle operations for a notes domain are adequately covered.
Average 3/5 across 6 of 6 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
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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 states the tool deletes a note and returns a confirmation, but doesn't mention critical aspects like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects on related data, or includes error handling for non-existent files. This is inadequate for a destructive operation.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main action ('Delete a note'), followed by brief sections for Args and Returns. There's no wasted text, though the structure is minimalistic. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it efficient but not richly informative.
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 (destructive operation with no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic action and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context like safety warnings or usage guidelines. For a deletion tool, this is a minimal viable description with 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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'filename' refers to a 'Note filename', clarifying the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., file extension, path structure) or examples, leaving some ambiguity. With one parameter and low schema coverage, this is above baseline but not fully comprehensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Delete a note' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_note' or 'create_note' beyond the obvious action. It's a basic statement of function without specificity about scope or constraints.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., note must exist), exclusions, or relationships to siblings like 'list_notes' for verification. It's a bare statement with no contextual usage information.
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 mentions returning a list of notes with titles and dates, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, permissions needed, or rate limits. For a list operation without annotations, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by structured sections for args and returns. It avoids unnecessary words, though the structure could be more integrated (e.g., combining description with parameter info).
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 low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks context on behavior and usage. It covers basics but misses guidance on when to use versus siblings and operational details.
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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that 'tag' is an 'Optional tag filter', which clarifies its purpose. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates well, though it could provide more detail on tag format or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get a list of all notes' which clearly indicates the verb (get/list) and resource (notes), but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_notes'. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation, making it vague in context.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_notes'. The description mentions an optional tag filter, but it doesn't explain when this tool is appropriate compared to other note-related tools, leaving usage unclear.
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 it's a read operation, which implies safety, but doesn't cover potential errors (e.g., if the file doesn't exist), permissions needed, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the formatting could be slightly more polished (e.g., using bullet points). Every sentence adds value, earning a high score.
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 low complexity, one parameter, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or differentiation from siblings, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's correct usage in more complex scenarios.
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 0%, but the description adds the parameter 'filename' and specifies it should include '.md extension'. This provides some semantic context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, such as format constraints or examples, so it meets the baseline.
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 ('Read') and resource ('contents of a note'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_notes' or 'list_notes' which also involve reading notes in different ways, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 'list_notes'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing the exact filename, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context for this specific read operation.
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 full burden. It states it 'Returns: List of notes containing the query' which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose other traits like whether it's case-sensitive, supports wildcards, has rate limits, requires authentication, or how it handles empty results. For a search 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns). Each sentence earns its place, though the Args and Returns sections are very brief. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words, but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
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 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (which likely describes the return structure), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. For a simple search tool, it's adequate but has clear gaps in guiding the agent 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal semantics: 'query: Search query' in the Args section, but this is basic and doesn't explain format, constraints, or examples (e.g., is it free text, supports operators?). With 1 parameter and low coverage, it partially compensates but remains vague.
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 text within notes' specifies the verb (search) and resource (notes). It distinguishes from siblings like list_notes (which presumably lists all notes without searching) and read_note (which reads a specific note). However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from siblings beyond the search functionality.
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. With siblings like list_notes and read_note available, there's no indication of when search_notes is preferred (e.g., for finding specific content vs. browsing all notes). No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to siblings are mentioned.
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 content and that content 'will be appended,' which adds behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling (e.g., if note doesn't exist), or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured but could be more integrated; however, every sentence adds value without waste. It's efficient but not perfectly streamlined.
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 has an output schema (returns confirmation message), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and complexity from sibling tools, it should provide more context on usage and behavior. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'filename' as the note filename and 'content' as new content that will be appended. This clarifies beyond the schema's basic titles, but doesn't provide format details (e.g., file extensions, content constraints). Baseline is 3 as it partially compensates for the coverage gap.
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: 'Update the content of an existing note.' It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('note'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'create_note' or 'read_note' beyond mentioning 'existing note.' This is clear but lacks sibling 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 prerequisites (e.g., note must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'create_note' for new notes or 'read_note' for viewing. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly 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 states the tool creates a note and returns a confirmation message, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate titles, or any rate limits. 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 highly concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by bullet points for arguments and returns, with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information in a readable format.
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 that there is an output schema (though not provided here), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations and incomplete behavioral transparency, it should do more to explain side effects or constraints. The parameter semantics are well-covered, but overall completeness is only adequate.
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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'title' is the note title, 'content' is the note content, and 'tags' is an optional comma-separated list. This clarifies the purpose and format of each parameter, compensating well for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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: 'Create a new Markdown note.' It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('Markdown note'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_note' or 'delete_note' beyond the creation aspect, which prevents a perfect score.
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, such as needing authentication or specific contexts, or when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing notes). With sibling tools like 'update_note' and 'delete_note' available, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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