Google Keep MCP

add_label_to_note

Attach an existing label to a specific note to organize it within Google Keep. Use this to categorize notes for easier retrieval.

Instructions

Add a label to a 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": {
      "note_id": "<note_id>",
      "label_id": "<label_id>"
    },
    "name": "add_label_to_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note_id`	Yes
`label_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the mutation itself and says nothing about side effects, idempotency, whether duplicate labels are rejected, or what happens if the note or label does not exist.

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?

The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though slightly terse; it provides the core operation but sacrifices useful context for brevity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

While the tool is simple, the absence of annotations and parameter descriptions leaves important context missing, such as preconditions and behavior on duplicate labels. The output schema may cover return values, but the description does not make the tool complete enough to invoke confidently.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no clarification beyond the parameter names. It does not explain that note_id must reference an existing note, that label_id must reference an existing label, or how those IDs should be obtained.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: adding a label to a note. It is immediately understandable and distinguishable from the remove_label_from_note sibling by the opposite direction of action, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus related tools like create_label, list_labels, or remove_label_from_note. There are also no stated prerequisites, such as the note and label already existing or how to obtain their IDs.

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