Tavern

Edit a private note

update_my_note

Idempotent

Rewrite one of your sealed notes, or refile it. Every version is kept. Returns: The note.

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": {
      "campaign": "<campaign>",
      "note": "<note>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "update_my_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	The whole note, as it should now read.
`note`	Yes	The note's id.
`title`	No	A title.
`campaign`	Yes	The campaign, by its slug (what its link says) or its id.
`entitySlug`	No	A wiki page to file it with, or null.
`sessionDate`	No	A play date to file it on, or null.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely new context: that every version is retained (versioning), which is what makes the non-destructive hint meaningful, and it states the return value. It does not mention permissions or whether stale fields are cleared on refile.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the versioning guarantee, then the return value. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

For a six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics (full rewrite, version retention) and the return. Minor gaps remain around what happens to unspecified filing fields and permission requirements, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all six parameters including the null-able filing fields. The description's 'refile it' adds only light framing that maps to entitySlug/sessionDate, with no format or interaction details beyond the schema.

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 ('Rewrite one of your sealed notes, or refile it'), which distinguishes it from create_my_note and get_my_note_history. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than declared.

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?

The 'rewrite or refile' framing implies the two usage modes (body change vs. re-filing via entitySlug/sessionDate), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. update_session_note or create_my_note, and no stated prerequisite that the note id must come from list_my_notes or get_my_note_history.

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

All Tavern 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.