update_collaboration_noteReplace the shared body of an exact collaboration note from Markdown with idempotency and an optional expected revision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| noteId | Yes | ||
| markdown | Yes | ||
| workspaceId | Yes | ||
| idempotencyKey | Yes | ||
| expectedRevision | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entityId | Yes | ||
| revision | Yes | ||
| documentId | Yes | ||
| entityType | Yes | ||
| workspaceId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "documentId": {
+ "format": "uuid",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "entityId": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "entityType": {
+ "const": "note",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "revision": {
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "workspaceId": {
+ "format": "uuid",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "workspaceId",
+ "entityType",
+ "entityId",
+ "documentId",
+ "revision"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool replaces the body, is idempotent, and supports an optional expected revision, which adds behavioral context beyond the raw annotations. However, it does not explain what happens on a revision mismatch, whether the note must already exist, or the consequences of replacing the body. The idempotency hint is already in annotations, so the description adds only moderate value here.
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 a single sentence with no filler, and the core action plus key properties are front-loaded. The phrase 'from Markdown' is slightly awkward and 'exact' is ambiguous, which prevents a perfect score, but it remains appropriately concise.
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 five parameters, zero schema description coverage, and no usage guidance, the description is not complete enough for correct invocation. It fails to clarify idempotency semantics, expectedRevision mismatch behavior, whether the note must exist, or when to prefer this over sibling tools. The output schema may cover return values, but substantial invocation context is still missing.
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 0%, and the description only partially compensates. It mentions Markdown and expected revision but does not explain the roles of workspaceId, noteId, or idempotencyKey, nor how expectedRevision behaves when omitted or mismatched. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not carry the load needed for such low schema coverage.
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 uses the specific verb 'Replace' and names the resource 'the shared body of an exact collaboration note,' which clearly identifies the operation. It adds detail beyond the title by mentioning idempotency and expected revision, though it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling update tools like upsert_note or update_public_page.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as upsert_note or update_public_page. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and resource type.
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.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and lifecycle pairs like publish_note_listing vs publish_media_listing or get_note vs get_collaboration_note are separated by clear wording. A few near-pairs such as move_file vs move_workspace_item and trash_file vs trash_workspace_item could still cause an agent to pick the wrong tool without careful reading.
All 38 tools follow one consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern with no camelCase or mixed conventions. Even less common verbs like upsert, trash, purge, and validate are applied uniformly, making the tool set predictable.
38 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and makes the overall surface feel heavy for tool selection. The number is defensible given the broad workspace, collaboration, and marketplace scope, but as a single MCP server it is not especially well-scoped.
The tool set covers workspace content lifecycle, collaboration, public pages, marketplace listings, Stripe seller flow, and agent registration without major dead ends. Minor gaps exist, such as no permanent delete outside of the trash flow and no direct collaboration-note deletion, but core workflows are supported.