Google Keep MCP

archive_note

Archive or unarchive a Google Keep note by providing its ID. Set 'archived' to true to archive or false to restore it.

Instructions

Archive or unarchive 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>"
    },
    "name": "archive_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note_id`	Yes
`archived`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core toggle behavior but does not explain the effects of archiving (e.g., visibility, retrieval, reversibility beyond the unarchive option), permissions, or any side effects. There is no contradiction with annotations because none 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple two-parameter tool, though its brevity prevents it from providing richer routing or usage context.

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?

The core call is fully specified: note_id and archived are inferable, and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. The main gap is situational context—how archiving relates to trashing, deleting, or restoring notes—which matters given the large sibling set.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. 'Archive or unarchive' maps usefully to the archived boolean parameter and identifies note_id as the target, but it does not explicitly document the default true value or the archived=false -> unarchive mapping. Some semantics are left to inference.

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 states a specific action ('Archive or unarchive') and a clear resource ('a note'). It distinguishes this tool from deletion, trashing, and pinning, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like restore_note.

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 provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like trash_note, delete_note, or restore_note. The description relies entirely on the tool name and user inference, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision context.

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