google-keep-mcp

restore_note

Restore a deleted note from the trash back to active notes in Google Keep.

Instructions

Restore a trashed note back to active notes.

Args:
    note_id (str): The ID of the trashed note to restore
    
Returns:
    str: Success message
    
Raises:
    ValueError: If the note doesn't exist, is not trashed, or cannot be modified

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": "restore_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool restores a trashed note and raises ValueError for invalid states. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or whether the note will be unarchived if archived and trashed.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Raises sections. It is relatively concise for the information provided, though the Raises section could be integrated into the main description.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the essential: purpose, parameter meaning, and error conditions. It does not mention success message format or idempotency, but these are minor gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds docstring explaining note_id as 'The ID of the trashed note to restore' and describes the return value. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Restore a trashed note back to active notes.' It uses a specific verb (restore) and resource (trashed note), and the outcome is distinct from siblings like archive_note or delete_note.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives, but it implies usage for trashed notes by mentioning 'trashed note' and raising ValueError if not trashed. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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

Deploy Server