google-keep-mcp

unarchive_note

Restore an archived note to your active notes by providing its note ID. Moves the note from the archive back to the main list for easy access.

Instructions

Unarchive a note (move it back to active notes).

Args:
    note_id (str): The ID of the archived note to unarchive
    
Returns:
    str: Success message
    
Raises:
    ValueError: If the note doesn't exist, is not archived, 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": "unarchive_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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool raises ValueError for invalid states, implying mutation, but it does not specify permissions, idempotency, side effects, or rate limits. The mutation is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise: a one-line summary followed by structured sections for args, returns, and raises. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no wasted words. The most critical 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 tool with one parameter and no nested objects, the description covers the action, parameter meaning, return type, and error conditions. It could optionally mention the state change more explicitly, but it is largely complete for its complexity.

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?

The single parameter note_id has zero description coverage in the schema. The description adds a clear explanation: 'The ID of the archived note to unarchive', adding meaningful context beyond the type. This compensates well for the schema gap.

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 specifies the verb 'unarchive' and the resource 'note', with the parenthetical 'move it back to active notes' adding specificity. It is distinct from sibling tools like archive_note and delete_archived_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 implies usage (when you want to unarchive a note) but does not provide explicit context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. It lacks comparison to alternatives like restore_note, which might be similar.

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

Deploy Server