update_noteUpdates an existing note in Apple Notes. Change the title and/or body (the body accepts Markdown, converted to Apple Notes' native formatting). Find note_id with list_notes or search_notes. Requires confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| note_id | No | ||
| note_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| updated | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that body accepts Markdown (converted to native format) and requires confirm=true, but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or behavior when omitting parameters.
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?
The description is two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides essential details on finding the note and the confirm requirement. No extraneous information.
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?
Given the output schema exists, return values need not be explained. However, the description does not clarify partial updates or the role of note_name, leaving some ambiguity. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description explains title, body, note_id (implied), and confirm parameters, but omits note_name entirely. It adds meaning beyond the schema but does not fully cover all five parameters.
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?
The description clearly states the tool updates an existing note in Apple Notes, specifying it can change title and/or body. It distinguishes from siblings like create_note, read_note, list_notes, and search_notes by the update action.
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?
The description advises finding note_id with list_notes or search_notes and requires confirm=true, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling list implicitly differentiates.
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.
Many tools are clearly distinct per app (e.g., chrome_*, safari_*, m365_*), but there is notable overlap between generic file tools like `file_list` and `finder_list`, both listing files; `search_contacts` and `list_contacts` serve similar purposes; `report_friction` and `report_problem` both send feedback to the team. The large number of tools with similar purposes in different domains creates moderate ambiguity for an agent.
The naming convention is very consistent overall: most tools follow a `{app}_action` or `verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `chrome_click`, `create_calendar_event`, `list_reminders`). There are minor deviations like `lmcp_install_upgrade` (two verbs) and `complete_omnifocus_task` vs. `complete_reminder` (inconsistent verb placement). Still, the pattern is predictable and readable across the full set.
With 225 tools, the surface is extremely large and heavy. While it covers many distinct domains (browsers, mail, calendar, files, notes, reminders, video editing, web automation, etc.), the sheer number makes it hard to navigate and likely includes many rarely-used tools. This is far beyond the well-scoped range of 3-15 tools and feels excessive even for a 'local everything' MCP server.
For many app integrations, the tool set provides solid CRUD coverage (e.g., Calendar has create, read, update, delete; Apple Notes has create, read, update, list, search; OmniFocus has create, list, search, complete). However, some areas are incomplete: for example, there is no tool to create a new Mail folder or delete notes. The 'web' tools lack a clear update/delete for saved sessions. The suite is broad but has notable gaps within individual domains.