@applyra/mcp-server

Change a note

update_note

DestructiveIdempotent

Change a note's text, day, or both using its ID from list_notes. Omitted fields keep their value; moving days may renumber other notes.

Instructions

Change the text, the day or both of a note; a field left out keeps its value. Pass the note id from list_notes. A note moved to an earlier or later day can renumber the others. Returns { note: { id, day, text, scope } }.

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
`day`	No	The new day in YYYY-MM-DD format, today or earlier
`text`	No	The new text, 1 to 120 characters
`note_id`	Yes	The note ID (numeric, from list_notes results)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.7.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes beyond the annotations (which already flag destructiveHint/idempotentHint) by disclosing the non-obvious side effect that moving a note to another day can renumber other notes, and by spelling out the return shape since no output schema exists. It still says nothing about permissions or failure modes.

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?

Three compact sentences plus a return shape, with the highest-value information (partial update, id source, renumbering side effect) front-loaded and no filler.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers partial-update semantics, the id prerequisite, the cross-note side effect, and the response shape — everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 lacks: omitted fields are preserved rather than cleared, and note_id must come from list_notes. Day format and length limits stay in the schema, so it does not need to repeat them.

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?

States a specific verb (Change) plus the exact fields it can change (text, the day, or both) on the note resource, and the id source, so it is instantly distinguishable from add_note, delete_note and list_notes in the sibling set.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear operating context: pass note_id from list_notes, and a field left out keeps its existing value (patch semantics). It does not, however, state when to prefer deletion or how the call behaves if the note does not exist, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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