google-keep-mcp

update_note

Update a Google Keep note's title or text content by providing the note ID.

Instructions

Update a note's properties.

Args:
    note_id (str): The ID of the note to update
    title (str, optional): New title for the note
    text (str, optional): New text content for the note
    
Returns:
    str: JSON string containing the updated note's data
    
Raises:
    ValueError: If the note doesn't exist 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": "update_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	No
`title`	No
`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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it modifies a note's properties, returns a JSON string of updated data, and raises ValueError for invalid or non-modifiable notes. This covers key aspects, though details like atomicity or side effects are omitted.

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 concise and well-structured, using clear sections for Args, Returns, Raises. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (implied), the description covers purpose, parameters, return value, and error conditions. It is fully adequate for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description documents all three parameters (note_id required, title and text optional) with explanations of their roles, significantly adding meaning beyond the input schema's mere titles and types. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description is essential.

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 starts with 'Update a note's properties,' clearly stating the action (update) on a resource (note). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like archive_note, delete_note, etc., which have different purposes.

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?

The description includes when the tool raises a ValueError (if note doesn't exist or cannot be modified), providing context on failure conditions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or specify prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server