google-keep-mcp

get_attachment_url

Retrieve a direct URL for a specific image, drawing, or audio attachment from a Google Keep note, enabling external access or download.

Instructions

Resolve a fetchable URL for one of a note's attachments (image/drawing/audio).

Makes a live network call to Google, so only call this for a specific attachment you actually need — not in a loop over search results.

Args: note_id: The ID of the note the attachment belongs to. attachment_id: The attachment's ID, from the note's "attachments" list.

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": {
      "note_id": "<note_id>",
      "attachment_id": "<attachment_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_attachment_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note_id`	Yes
`attachment_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses live network call to Google, which implies latency and potential cost. No annotations provided, so description carries burden; lacks info on error handling or auth, but acceptable for simple resolution.

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?

Concise, front-loaded with purpose, followed by a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given tool simplicity and presence of output schema, description fully covers purpose, usage, and parameters. Sibling tools context shows it's unique.

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?

Parameter descriptions explain the source of each ID (note_id and attachment_id from note's attachments list), adding value beyond schema (which only specifies string type). Coverage 0% but compensated.

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?

Clearly states it resolves a fetchable URL for a note's attachment, specifying types (image/drawing/audio). Distinct from sibling tools which handle notes/labels/lists.

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?

Explicitly warns against calling in loops due to live network call, and advises only for specific attachments. No alternative tool mentioned but usage context is clear.

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

Deploy Server