Bullet MCP

update_entry

Idempotent

Change the title of an existing task, note, or event to keep information current and clear.

Instructions

Update an entry's title.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "update_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Entry ID (UUID) to update.
`title`	Yes	New title (1-500 characters).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entry`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the fact that it updates a title. The idempotentHint annotation already exists, but the description adds no additional context about effects on other fields, error cases, or preconditions. Since it adds nothing beyond the annotation, the score is low.

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 a single, concise sentence that accurately and efficiently states the tool's function. There is no redundant content, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool with an output schema and idempotentHint annotation, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits any contextual guidance about preconditions (e.g., entry must exist) or behavior on missing entries, which could lower completeness for an AI agent.

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?

The input schema thoroughly describes both parameters (id as UUID, title with length constraints), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (update) and the specific resource attribute (entry's title), which distinguishes it from create/get/delete/list operations among its siblings. The verb and noun are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It relies on the tool name and schema to convey usage, which is less helpful for an AI agent.

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

Deploy Server