Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ThreadPage

by page.thread
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Pin or mark a note done

update_note_properties
DestructiveIdempotent

Pin a Note or mark it done, or undo either, without touching its content (update_note changes content); get_thread shows up to 6 pinned Notes besides the newest 12. Needs Can edit and organize; expected_revision is not compared: the last change wins. A Note in Trash answers entity_deleted, one in an archived Thread thread_archived, one with an open request request_open. Answers a receipt with the new revision and url.

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": {
      "operation_id": "<operation_id>",
      "note_id": "<note_id>",
      "expected_revision": "<expected_revision>",
      "properties": "<properties>"
    },
    "name": "update_note_properties"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
note_idYesA Note's id, from get_thread, search or get_note.
propertiesYesOnly what changes: pinned_at and done_at, each a UTC time such as "2026-10-22T09:30:00Z" to pin or mark done, or null to undo.
operation_idYesA new UUID for each write. After a lost answer, send the identical call with the same one, or check get_operation before writing again.
expected_revisionYesIts revision from list_threads, get_thread, list_folders or get_note (not a content_revision); not compared.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / expected_revision / description
      Previous value: -"The revision you last read for it."New value: +"Its revision from list_threads, get_thread, list_folders or get_note (not a content_revision); not compared."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the permission required ('Needs Can edit and organize'), the concurrency model ('expected_revision is not compared: the last change wins'), and three named failure modes (entity_deleted, thread_archived, request_open). It also describes the receipt returned with the new revision and url, which is the only return-value documentation since no output schema exists. Nothing here contradicts destructiveHint or idempotentHint; 'last change wins' is consistent with idempotentHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause carries information rather than filler. It is dense to the point of being slightly run-on, with semicolon-chained clauses and a parenthetical, which costs a little readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the missing pieces: permissions, concurrency behavior, error outcomes, and the shape of the returned receipt. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret failures without further documentation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema does not: it explains the consequence of expected_revision being uncompared ('the last change wins'), which is the key semantic an agent needs before retrying a write. It does not restate note_id, properties or operation_id, leaving those to the already-detailed schema.

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?

Names specific operations (pin, mark done, undo either) on a specific resource (a Note), and explicitly separates itself from the sibling update_note by stating it does not touch content. An agent can distinguish it from update_note, trash_note and update_thread without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The parenthetical '(update_note changes content)' is an explicit routing rule to the alternative tool, and the tool's own scope is stated with an exclusion ('without touching its content'). The get_thread clause further explains the observable effect of pinning (up to 6 pinned Notes beside the newest 12), which helps an agent decide whether pinning is the right action.

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

All ThreadPage toolsInspect
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