Sweeppea MCP

update_note

Idempotent

Update an existing note. Use fetch_notes first to get the note_token. Supports partial updates. HTML tags: h1-h6, p, a, br, strong, i, ul, ol, li. No scripts/iframes. Do NOT use   between sections.

update_note

When to use

Update an existing note. Use fetch_notes first to get the note_token. Supports partial updates. HTML tags: h1-h6, p, a, br, strong, i, ul, ol, li. No scripts/iframes. Do NOT use   between sections.

Parameters to validate before calling

note_token (string, required) — The note token to update (UUID format)
title (string, optional) — New title (max 100 characters, must be unique)
content (string, optional) — New content (max 100,000 characters, will be encrypted). Allowed HTML: -, , , , , , , , . No scripts, iframes, or executable code.
pinned (boolean, optional) — Pin or unpin the note

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No	New title (max 100 characters, must be unique)
`pinned`	No	Pin or unpin the note
`content`	No	New content (max 100,000 characters, will be encrypted). Allowed HTML: <h1>-<h6>, <p>, <a>, <br>, <strong>, <i>, <ul>, <ol>, <li>. No scripts, iframes, or executable code.
`note_token`	Yes	The note token to update (UUID format)

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: partial update semantics, encryption of content, HTML tag whitelist, and the specific prohibition on <br>  between sections. These add significant value over the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint flags.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is repetitive: the initial concise sentence is followed by a markdown section that duplicates the same content and parameter details. This redundancy makes it unnecessarily long, though the headings provide some structure.

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?

Covers all actionable constraints: note_token retrieval, partial updates, HTML restrictions, length limits, and encryption. It does not describe the return value, but for an update tool this is not critical. Overall, the description is complete for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining every parameter including max lengths, uniqueness, and encryption. The description's parameter list duplicates the schema without adding new semantic information, so baseline 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 clearly states 'Update an existing note' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings (create_note, delete_note) by emphasizing 'existing' and 'partial updates', and references fetch_notes as a prerequisite.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: use fetch_notes first to get note_token, supports partial updates, and lists allowed HTML tags. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the prerequisite and field constraints give clear guidance.

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

All Sweeppea MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

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

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern (fetch_* for lists, get_* for single items, create/update/delete for writes), making them distinguishable. A few near-overlaps exist (fetch_billing_transactions vs fetch_wallet_transactions, draw_winners vs schedule_drawing) but the descriptions clarify the boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case verb_noun, with fetch_ for list operations and get_ for single-item retrieval. Some verb variation (add_participant, count_participants, draw_winners, schedule_drawing) deviates from the dominant create/fetch/update/delete pattern but remains predictable and readable.

Tool Count1/5

With 83 tools, this is far beyond a well-scoped server (typically 3-15, with 25+ considered too many). Even though the platform has broad functionality, the sheer number of tools creates significant agent confusion and selection overhead.

Completeness4/5

The sweepstakes domain is thoroughly covered: lifecycle management, participants, groups, rules, drawings, winners, calendar, notes, todos, tickets, surveys, invoices, billing, files, and entry settings. A few minor gaps exist (e.g., no general participant field update, no archive action) but the surface is remarkably complete for its scope.

Resources

Need Help?