Google Keep MCP

update_note

Modify a Keep note's title or body text by supplying its ID and the desired new values. Use this to correct or refresh note content.

Instructions

Update a note's title and/or text content.

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": "update_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	No
`title`	No
`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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the mutation and target fields without clarifying whether omitted fields remain unchanged, whether null clears a field, or what side effects occur. This leaves important behavioral ambiguity.

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 efficient, though a bit too sparse to earn a 5.

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?

This is a simple tool with three basic parameters and an output schema, so the core operation is clear enough for an agent to attempt calling it. However, missing usage guidance and unresolved partial-update/null behavior leave meaningful gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names title and text content, but adds little beyond the schema property titles and does not explain the required note_id or the meaning of null/default values. The 'and/or' phrase hints at partial updates but does not resolve semantics.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Update'), a distinct resource ('a note'), and the exact scope ('title and/or text content'). This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like set_note_color, create_note, or trash_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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_note, delete_note, or update_list_item. The intended context is only implied by the word 'Update', with no exclusions or alternative routing cues.

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