How do I use onenote_mcp_server?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@onenote_mcp_server Create a section called 'Meeting Notes' in my Project notebook" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

onenote_mcp_server

by ItsikBin

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Remote

OneNote MCP Server

A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that connects GitHub Copilot (and other MCP-compatible AI tools) to Microsoft OneNote for Business via the Microsoft Graph API.

Features

Tool	Description
`list_notebooks`	List all OneNote notebooks accessible to the configured service account
`list_sections`	List sections in a notebook
`create_section`	Create a new section in a notebook
`create_page`	Create a new page in a section (HTML content)
`update_page`	Update an existing page with patch commands
`get_page`	Retrieve a page's HTML content

Related MCP server: OneNote MCP Server

Prerequisites

Node.js 18 or later
A Microsoft 365 / Office 365 work or school account
An Azure AD app registration with a client secret and application permissions (one-time setup, free, takes ~5 minutes)

Step 1 — Register an Azure AD App

This is a one-time setup. You need an Azure account that has access to your organisation's Azure AD.

Go to https://entra.microsoft.com and sign in.
Navigate to Identity → Applications → App registrations → New registration.
Fill in:
- Name: OneNote MCP Server (or any name you prefer)
- Supported account types: Single tenant is recommended for background-service access.
Click Register.
On the app overview page, copy:
- Application (client) ID → this is your ONENOTE_CLIENT_ID
- Directory (tenant) ID → this is your ONENOTE_TENANT_ID
Go to Certificates & secrets → New client secret and copy the secret value.
Go to API permissions → Add a permission → Microsoft Graph → Application permissions.
Add Notes.ReadWrite.All.
Click Grant admin consent for your tenant.

Step 2 — Install the MCP Server

# Clone or download this repository, then:
cd onenote-mcp-server
npm install
npm run build

Step 3 — Use from GitHub in any project (no local clone required)

After you push this repo to GitHub, you can reference it directly from MCP host configs:

{
  "servers": {
    "onenote": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "github:<YOUR_GITHUB_USERNAME>/onenote_mcp_server"],
      "env": {
        "ONENOTE_CLIENT_ID": "your-client-id-from-step-1",
        "ONENOTE_TENANT_ID": "your-tenant-id",
        "ONENOTE_CLIENT_SECRET": "your-client-secret",
        "ONENOTE_USER_PRINCIPAL_NAME": "service-account@yourtenant.com"
      }
    }
  }
}

Replace <YOUR_GITHUB_USERNAME>/onenote_mcp_server with your actual GitHub repo path. The prepare script builds TypeScript automatically when the package is installed from GitHub.

Step 4 — Configure GitHub Copilot Desktop

Edit .vscode/mcp.json in this project (already provided) and fill in your values:

{
  "servers": {
    "onenote": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/absolute/path/to/onenote-mcp-server/build/index.js"],
      "env": {
        "ONENOTE_CLIENT_ID": "your-client-id-from-step-1",
        "ONENOTE_TENANT_ID": "your-tenant-id",
        "ONENOTE_CLIENT_SECRET": "your-client-secret",
        "ONENOTE_USER_PRINCIPAL_NAME": "service-account@yourtenant.com"
      }
    }
  }
}

Windows path example: "C:\\Users\\you\\onenote-mcp-server\\build\\index.js"

Option B: User-level configuration (applies to all your workspaces)

In VS Code, open the Command Palette (Ctrl+Shift+P) → MCP: Open User Configuration, then add:

{
  "servers": {
    "onenote": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/absolute/path/to/onenote-mcp-server/build/index.js"],
      "env": {
        "ONENOTE_CLIENT_ID": "your-client-id",
        "ONENOTE_TENANT_ID": "your-tenant-id"
      }
    }
  }
}

Step 5 — Start Using the Server

The server authenticates automatically with the configured app registration and accesses OneNote for the user principal name you set in ONENOTE_USER_PRINCIPAL_NAME.

Environment Variables

Variable	Required	Default	Description
`ONENOTE_CLIENT_ID`	✅ Yes	—	Azure AD Application (client) ID
`ONENOTE_TENANT_ID`	✅ Yes	—	Tenant ID for the Entra app registration
`ONENOTE_CLIENT_SECRET`	✅ Yes	—	Client secret value for the app registration
`ONENOTE_USER_PRINCIPAL_NAME`	✅ Yes	—	User principal name whose OneNote notebooks the service accesses
`ONENOTE_LOG_LEVEL`	No	`error`	Log verbosity: `debug`, `info`, `warn`, `error`

Usage Examples

Once configured, you can ask Copilot things like:

"List all my OneNote notebooks"
"Show me the sections in my Work notebook"
"Create a section called 'Meeting Notes' in my Project notebook"
"Create a OneNote page titled 'Sprint Planning' with a bullet list of our team goals"
"Get the content of page [ID] so I can update it"
"Add a new paragraph to the end of page [ID]"

Token Cache Location

After the service first authenticates, the token cache is stored here (never committed to git):

Platform	Location
Windows	`%APPDATA%\onenote-mcp-server\token-cache.json`
macOS	`~/Library/Application Support/onenote-mcp-server/token-cache.json`
Linux	`~/.local/share/onenote-mcp-server/token-cache.json`

The cache file is restricted to owner-only permissions (chmod 600 on Unix).
To force re-authentication, delete this file.

Security

Confidential client app — client secrets are required and kept in environment variables
Application permissions — Notes.ReadWrite.All via the Graph .default scope
Client credentials flow — the server authenticates headlessly in the background
Tokens never logged — the Authorization header and token values are never written to logs
Input validation — all resource IDs are validated against a safe-ID pattern before URL interpolation
HTML sanitisation — script tags, event handlers, and dangerous URI schemes are stripped from page content
Atomic cache writes — token cache is written via temp file + rename to prevent corruption

Scopes and Permissions

The server requests Notes.ReadWrite.All as an application permission, which covers:

Reading notebooks, sections, and pages for the configured user principal name
Creating notebooks, sections, and pages
Updating pages

Admin consent is required for the app permission.

Troubleshooting

"ONENOTE_CLIENT_ID environment variable is not set"
→ Make sure ONENOTE_CLIENT_ID is set in your mcp.json env block.

"ONENOTE_CLIENT_SECRET environment variable is not set"
→ Make sure the client secret value is set in your mcp.json env block.

"ONENOTE_USER_PRINCIPAL_NAME environment variable is not set"
→ Make sure the service account UPN is set in your mcp.json env block.

"Graph API error: 403"
→ The app registration is missing Notes.ReadWrite.All, admin consent was not granted, or the configured user principal name cannot access the requested notebook.

"Graph API error: 401"
→ Delete the token cache file (listed above under "Token Cache Location") and re-authenticate.

"Request timed out"
→ Network issue connecting to graph.microsoft.com. Check your proxy/firewall settings.

Use with other MCP hosts (Claude Desktop / Cursor / others)

Any MCP host that supports stdio can use this server with the same command/env pattern:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "onenote": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "github:<YOUR_GITHUB_USERNAME>/onenote_mcp_server"],
      "env": {
        "ONENOTE_CLIENT_ID": "your-client-id",
        "ONENOTE_TENANT_ID": "your-tenant-id",
        "ONENOTE_CLIENT_SECRET": "your-client-secret",
        "ONENOTE_USER_PRINCIPAL_NAME": "service-account@yourtenant.com"
      }
    }
  }
}

If your host expects servers instead of mcpServers, keep the same inner object and rename only the top-level key.

Development

# Run without building (uses tsx)
npm run dev

# Build TypeScript
npm run build

# Start the built server
npm start

API Reference

All operations use the Microsoft Graph API v1.0 endpoints:

Operation	Endpoint
List notebooks	`GET /users/{userPrincipalName}/onenote/notebooks`
List sections	`GET /users/{userPrincipalName}/onenote/notebooks/{id}/sections`
Create section	`POST /users/{userPrincipalName}/onenote/notebooks/{id}/sections`
Create page	`POST /users/{userPrincipalName}/onenote/sections/{id}/pages`
Update page	`PATCH /users/{userPrincipalName}/onenote/pages/{id}/content`
Get page	`GET /users/{userPrincipalName}/onenote/pages/{id}/content`

Note: The server uses application permissions to access OneNote for the configured user principal name. Admin consent is required.

Available Tools

6 tools

create_pageA

Create a new page in a OneNote section. The content should be HTML. Script tags and event handlers are stripped for security.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	Page title (max 128 characters)
`section_id`	Yes	The ID of the OneNote section
`html_content`	No	HTML content for the page body (e.g. <h1>Heading</h1><p>Content</p>). Defaults to a blank page if omitted.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: script tags and event handlers are stripped for security. However, it doesn't mention permissions, side effects, or return value, leaving some 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word earns its place. No filler or repetition of schema details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple create tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter expectations, and a security note. It's slightly incomplete regarding usage guidance relative to siblings and return behavior, but 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?

All parameters are already described in the schema (100% coverage), but the description adds value by clarifying that html_content should be HTML and that security filtering applies. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Create a new page') and resource ('OneNote section'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_section and update_page. The verb and object are unambiguous.

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 context of when to use the tool is clear: when a new page needs to be created in an existing OneNote section. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list itself makes the distinction apparent.

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

create_sectionB

Create a new section in a OneNote notebook for the configured account.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`notebook_id`	Yes	The ID of the OneNote notebook
`display_name`	Yes	Name for the new section (max 128 characters, no special chars ? * \ / : < > \| ' ")

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, error conditions, or whether duplicate names are allowed, leaving the agent without important 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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no unnecessary words.

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?

For a simple create operation with two documented parameters, the description is adequate but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., notebook existence) and potential error responses. No output schema exists, so return values are not covered, but the description still leaves 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?

The input schema fully documents both notebook_id and display_name with descriptions, so the description adds no extra semantic value. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' and resource 'section in a OneNote notebook', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_sections and create_page.

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, such as when a notebook must be created first or how it differs from create_page. The description only states what it does without contextual usage.

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

get_pageA

Get the HTML content of a OneNote page. Set include_ids=true to get element IDs needed for targeted update_page commands.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page_id`	Yes	The ID of the OneNote page
`include_ids`	No	When true, adds generated id attributes to elements — needed for precise updates

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the key behavioral detail that include_ids adds generated id attributes to elements, which is beyond the schema description. It also clarifies that the tool returns HTML content, though it doesn't mention error handling or non-mutating nature explicitly.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence delivers an actionable tip without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple get tool with just two parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it states the return type (HTML content) and the optional behavior. It doesn't explain handling of invalid IDs or large content, but those are not critical for basic usage. It's complete enough to successfully invoke the tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds value by elaborating on the include_ids parameter's purpose ('to get element IDs needed for targeted update_page commands'), which goes beyond the schema's simple 'adds generated id attributes'. This helps the agent understand when to use the parameter.

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 action ('Get the HTML content of a OneNote page') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_page and list_sections by focusing on fetching content for a single page, not listing or modifying.

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 provides practical guidance by explaining when to set include_ids=true: 'needed for targeted update_page commands'. This implies a use case for this tool in preparation for updates, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or alternative retrieval tools.

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

list_notebooksA

List all OneNote notebooks accessible to the configured service account. Returns notebook IDs, names, share status, and direct links.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

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 that the tool returns notebook IDs, names, share status, and direct links, and notes it operates within the scope of the configured service account. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'list' inherently implies no side effects, which is sufficient for this simple read tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the primary function followed by return details. Every word serves a purpose—no filler, no repetition of the name or title, and all information is presented in a logical order.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool with low complexity, this description is largely complete—it names the resource scope and return data. It lacks explicit mention of pagination or ordering, but these are not critical for a list operation and are not expected given the simplicity of the tool.

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 zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is no schema detail to compensate for, and the description adds context about the return value instead.

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' and the resource 'all OneNote notebooks accessible to the configured service account,' which is specific and distinct from sibling tools that operate on sections and pages. The scope and return fields are also mentioned, fully clarifying what the tool does.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (sections, pages) implies this is the entry point for notebook-level operations. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, so usage guidance is only implied.

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

list_sectionsA

List all sections in a specific OneNote notebook. Use list_notebooks first to get the notebook ID.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`notebook_id`	Yes	The ID of the OneNote notebook

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It appropriately implies a read-only listing operation ('List all sections') and notes a dependency on notebook_id, but it does not describe return format, ordering, or possible errors. For a simple list tool, this is minimally adequate.

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 two sentences, each earning its place. The first states the action precisely, and the second provides a necessary usage guideline. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers its purpose and the required usage sequence. It lacks return format details, but the tool name and the obvious outcome ('list all sections') make it reasonably complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with a basic parameter description ('The ID of the OneNote notebook'). The tool description adds meaningful context by stating 'Use list_notebooks first to get the notebook ID,' clarifying the source of the parameter and the prerequisite step, which goes beyond the schema's type-only description.

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 'List all sections in a specific OneNote notebook' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling list_notebooks by specifying the notebook scope and directing the user to first call list_notebooks.

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 gives explicit context: 'Use list_notebooks first to get the notebook ID.' This clearly indicates when this tool should be used (after obtaining a notebook ID). It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the prerequisite guidance is valuable.

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

update_pageA

Update an existing OneNote page by applying patch commands. Supports append, prepend, insert, replace, and delete operations on specific elements. Call get_page with include_ids=true first to obtain element IDs for precise targeting.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page_id`	Yes	The ID of the OneNote page to update
`commands`	Yes	Array of patch commands (1–20)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists supported operations (append, prepend, insert, replace, delete) and implies mutation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or error handling. This is adequate but not rich.

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: first sentence states primary purpose, second sentence summarizes supported operations, third sentence gives the key prerequisite. No filler or redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex tool with patch commands, the description explicitly mentions the operation types and the prerequisite call to get_page. It does not explain return values or errors, but the absence of an output schema reduces that burden. The combination of schema and description provides sufficient context for correct usage.

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 input schema already covers all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds semantic value by explaining the use of element IDs for precise targeting, which clarifies the 'target' parameter and the workflow. This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update an existing OneNote page by applying patch commands.' It specifies the exact resource (OneNote page) and the action (update with patch commands), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_page and get_page.

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 provides a concrete usage directive: 'Call get_page with include_ids=true first to obtain element IDs for precise targeting.' This guides the agent on a prerequisite step, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives beyond implying that get_page should be used before this tool.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

6 tool updatesv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026
- First observedcreate_page
- First observedcreate_section
- First observedget_page
- First observedlist_notebooks
- First observedlist_sections
- First observedupdate_page

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource (notebooks, sections, pages) and action (list, create, get, update). No overlapping purposes; list_sections and create_section are clearly differentiated by action.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: list_notebooks, list_sections, create_section, create_page, update_page, get_page. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for OneNote management, covering the essential notebook/section/page hierarchy without unnecessary bloat or trivial additions.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core lifecycle: read notebooks, list/create sections, and create/get/update pages. Minor gaps exist (no delete operations, no rename section), but the primary workflows are supported.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained

ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

ClawLinkOAuth
dev.claw-link
MCP server connecting AI agents to 100+ apps (Gmail, Slack, Notion, GitHub) via one-click OAuth.
App Automation Workplace & Productivity
24
hjarni AOAuth
com.hjarni
Markdown-based note-taking with a hosted MCP server. Your notes serve you and your AI.
Note Taking Workplace & Productivity
3
Artificial Wit AIOAuth
com.artificialwit
MCP server unifying ERPs, CRMs, APIs and knowledge base for Claude, ChatGPT and Gemini.
ERP Systems CRM Knowledge & Memory
2
ZapierOAuth
com.zapier
Hosted MCP server connecting AI assistants to 9,000+ apps and 40,000+ actions via Zapier.
App Automation Workplace & Productivity
2297

Related MCP Servers

OneNote MCP Server
Browser Automation Note Taking Web Scraping
hwillGIT
F
license
Not graded
quality
Not graded
maintenance
An MCP server that enables AI assistants to programmatically browse and interact with OneNote notebooks shared via web links through browser automation.
Updated a year ago (2025-03-24 21:29 UTC)
25
4
-
OneNote MCP Server
Note Taking Content Management Systems
danosb
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server that enables AI language models like Claude to interact with Microsoft OneNote, allowing access to notebooks, creating pages, searching notes, and analyzing content directly through the AI interface.
Updated a year ago (2025-04-12 09:27 UTC)
43
119
MIT
OneNote MCP Server
Note Taking Content Management Systems Developer Tools
eshlon
A
license
C
quality
D
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server that enables AI language models like Claude to securely interact with Microsoft OneNote data, allowing for reading, writing, searching, and comprehensive editing of notebooks, sections, and pages directly through an AI interface.
Updated 4 months ago (2026-05-01 17:47 UTC)
13
14
MIT
onenote-mcp
Note Taking Knowledge & Memory
jacob-hartmann
A
license
A
quality
C
maintenance
Enables AI assistants to read, write, and manage Microsoft OneNote notebooks, sections, and pages through OAuth-authenticated MCP tools, resources, and prompts.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-06-22 04:34 UTC)
16
25
5
MIT

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/ItsikBin/onenote_mcp_server'

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

OneNote MCP Server

Features

Prerequisites

Step 1 — Register an Azure AD App

Step 2 — Install the MCP Server

Step 3 — Use from GitHub in any project (no local clone required)

Step 4 — Configure GitHub Copilot Desktop

Option A: Workspace configuration (recommended for team sharing)

Option B: User-level configuration (applies to all your workspaces)

Step 5 — Start Using the Server

Environment Variables

Usage Examples

Token Cache Location

Security

Scopes and Permissions

Troubleshooting

Use with other MCP hosts (Claude Desktop / Cursor / others)

Development

API Reference

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Looking for Admin?

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API