update_noteEdit a note or move it.
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": {
"noteId": "<noteId>"
},
"name": "update_note"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| text | No | ||
| time | No | ||
| noteId | Yes | ||
| projectId | No | Project to act on (default: the open one) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only but non-destructive write with openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether text replaces or appends existing content, what happens on partial edits, or what 'move' mutates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Six words, front-loaded, zero filler — but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy of expression. There is no wasted sentence because there is barely a sentence at all.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A five-parameter mutation tool with 20% schema coverage and no output schema needs the description to do real work, and this one does almost none. An agent would have to inspect the schema and guess at the meaning of text, time, and end before calling it safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% — only projectId is documented — leaving noteId, text, time, and end unexplained in both schema and description. The phrase "move it" loosely gestures at projectId, but the description supplies no semantics for the remaining four parameters despite carrying most of the burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Edit a note or move it" names a verb (edit/move) and a resource (note), so the basic action is clear. But "move" is ambiguous — it could mean reassigning the note to a different project or repositioning it in a timeline — and nothing distinguishes this from siblings like update_marker, update_clip, reopen_note, or resolve_note.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus reopen_note, resolve_note, or delete_note, and no prerequisites stated. The one hint is implicit: 'move' suggests project reassignment, but the agent must guess that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.