RetailHardHat

Update Project Note

update_project_note

Destructive

update an existing project note's title/content. The original author and project cannot be changed. MCP approval requirements are configurable by the organization administrator; business workflow approvals always apply.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "noteId": "<noteId>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "update_project_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`noteId`	Yes
`projectId`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: author and project are immutable, MCP approval requirements are org-configurable, and business workflow approvals always apply. It does not, however, explain the destructive aspect — that supplying content overwrites the existing body.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the immutability constraint immediately after. The approval-configuration sentence is somewhat boilerplate but conveys real policy information, so it earns most of its place.

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?

Output schema and annotations cover return values and safety metadata, and the description handles immutability and approvals. The remaining gap — partial-update semantics for a tool flagged destructive — is the one thing an agent most needs and is left unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, but it only names 'title/content' generically. It does not explain that they live under a nested 'data' object, that title accepts null, or whether omitting a field preserves the existing value versus clearing it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('update an existing project note's title/content') and implicitly separates itself from create_project_note and delete_project_note. It also scopes the mutable fields, though it never names a sibling tool explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'existing' tells the agent this is for notes that already exist, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-create guidance and no mention of prerequisites such as needing the note to be visible or editable by the caller.

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

All RetailHardHat tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?