Skip to main content
Glama
arctop

Seamless

by arctop
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

notes_update

DestructiveIdempotent

Edit a note's title, description, body, project, or tags by id. Omitted fields stay unchanged; pass expect_hash to avoid overwriting edits made after you read it.

Instructions

Update a note's fields by id (title, description, body, project, tags). Omitted fields are untouched; the slug and id stay stable. body replaces the WHOLE body, so pass expect_hash (notes_read returns it) to have the write refused rather than silently overwriting an edit that landed after you read the note -- and use notes_append when you only mean to add to it. Tags come in three flavors: tags replaces the whole set, while tags_add and tags_remove edit it in place; prefer add/remove, since a replace discards whatever another agent tagged in between and tags_remove is the only way to clear a tag at all.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesnote id (ULID)
bodyNonew body, replacing the whole body (aliases: content, text)
tagsNotags, replacing all (a comma-separated string is also accepted); an empty list is read as absent and leaves the tags untouched -- to drop a tag use tags_remove
titleNonew title
projectNonew project slug ("" or "global" = global scope)
sessionNothe session to act as: the name session_start returned, the cc/<id> or cx/<id> on your briefing's 'Seam session' line, or a session ULID. It scopes and credits this call. Defaults to this connection's session; pass it on every call when session_start reports the connection as stateless
tags_addNotags to add, leaving the rest in place; a tag already on the note is not duplicated. Applied after tags.
descriptionNonew description
expect_hashNooptional precondition: the content_hash you last read for this item (memory_read/notes_read return it). The write is refused if the stored file has changed since -- another agent or the owner edited it -- so re-read and re-apply your change instead of overwriting theirs. Omit it to write unconditionally.
tags_removeNotags to drop, matched exactly; a tag the note does not carry is ignored. Applied last, so it also removes what tags/tags_add just set.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.4
    • addedInput schema / properties / session
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "the session to act as: the name session_start returned, the cc/<id> or cx/<id> on your briefing's 'Seam session' line, or a session ULID. It scopes and credits this call. Defaults to this connection's session; pass it on every call when session_start reports the connection as stateless",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.4.11
    • changedInput schema / properties / body / description
      Previous value: -"new body (aliases: content, text)"New value: +"new body, replacing the whole body (aliases: content, text)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / expect_hash
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "optional precondition: the content_hash you last read for this item (memory_read/notes_read return it). The write is refused if the stored file has changed since -- another agent or the owner edited it -- so re-read and re-apply your change instead of overwriting theirs. Omit it to write unconditionally.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / tags / description
      Previous value: -"tags, replacing all (a comma-separated string is also accepted); an empty list is read as absent and leaves the tags untouched"New value: +"tags, replacing all (a comma-separated string is also accepted); an empty list is read as absent and leaves the tags untouched -- to drop a tag use tags_remove"
    • addedInput schema / properties / tags_add
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "tags to add, leaving the rest in place; a tag already on the note is not duplicated. Applied after tags.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / tags_remove
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "tags to drop, matched exactly; a tag the note does not carry is ignored. Applied last, so it also removes what tags/tags_add just set.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare the destructive/idempotent profile, and the description adds substantially beyond that: omitted fields are untouched, slug and id stay stable, body replace is whole-body (not a merge), tags replace vs add/remove have different blast radii, and expect_hash can refuse the write rather than overwrite another agent's edit. This is exactly the behavioral context the structured fields do not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then layered concurrency and tag semantics in descending priority, using semicolons to keep it as one dense paragraph. It is long, but nearly every clause carries load-bearing behavior; only the repeated tag-flavor explanation borders on 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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers mutation scope, concurrency safety, and tag semantics thoroughly. The remaining gap is not addressing notes_edit, so an agent choosing between two very similar updaters is left without disambiguation.

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; the description still adds value by explaining the ORDER of application (add/remove after tags) and the 'prefer add/remove' rule that the schema states more neutrally. It doesn't add much to id/title/project/description beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a note's fields by id') and enumerates the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what is being mutated. It differentiates from notes_append explicitly. However it never distinguishes itself from the near-identically named sibling notes_edit, which is the most likely confusion point.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit alternative routing: use notes_append when you only mean to add to the body, and prefer tags_add/tags_remove over a full replace. It also states when to supply expect_hash (to avoid clobbering a concurrent edit) and that tags_remove is the only way to clear a tag. These are concrete when-to-use conditions, not inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools