Google Keep MCP

set_note_color

Change the color of a Google Keep note to organize and visually categorize it. Specify note ID and one of the valid colors to update instantly.

Instructions

Set the color of a note. Valid colors: WHITE, RED, ORANGE, YELLOW, GREEN, TEAL, BLUE, DARK_BLUE, PURPLE, PINK, BROWN, GRAY.

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>",
      "color": "<color>"
    },
    "name": "set_note_color"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`color`	Yes
`note_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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the mutation effect and enumerates valid color values, which is useful. However, it does not mention invalid-color behavior, permissions, idempotency, or what happens if the note does not exist, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by a high-value list of allowed values. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter setter with an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it states the action and all valid color values. It could be stronger with usage guidance and error/authorization notes, but the core invocation information is present.

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?

The schema provides only field names and types with no descriptions, so the description's enumeration of valid colors adds substantial meaning for the 'color' parameter. It does not describe 'note_id' format, but that parameter is self-explanatory and the color enum is the critical semantic content.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('note') and identifies the exact attribute being modified ('color'). It is clear and distinguishable from generic note operations, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate from.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_note, or any context about prerequisites or constraints. The description only states what the tool does, leaving usage decisions entirely to inference.

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