@drmaxbdc/productboard-mcp

set_note_customer

Set or replace the customer relationship on a note by providing the note ID, customer ID, and whether the customer is a user or company.

Instructions

Set or replace the customer relationship on a note. Only accepts user or company targets.

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": {
      "noteId": "<noteId>",
      "customerId": "<customerId>",
      "customerType": "<customerType>"
    },
    "name": "set_note_customer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`noteId`	Yes	Note UUID
`customerId`	Yes	Customer UUID (user or company)
`customerType`	Yes	Customer type

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.1Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Set or replace' usefully discloses that an existing relationship is overwritten rather than added alongside, which is real behavioral information. However, it says nothing about required permissions, what happens to a previously linked customer, or error behavior when the type is invalid.

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?

Two short sentences with the action and the constraint front-loaded; nothing is wasted and no filler is present.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and the target-type constraint but omits mutation side effects, permission requirements, and confirmation of what the call returns. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the enum on customerType is already declared, so the description's 'user or company' statement largely restates structured data. It adds no format, ordering, or side-effect detail for noteId or customerId beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description pairs a specific verb ('Set or replace') with a precise resource ('the customer relationship on a note'), so an agent knows exactly what is mutated. It does not name a sibling such as create_note_relationship or delete_note_relationship to disambiguate, but the scope is unmistakable.

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?

'Only accepts user or company targets' is a parameter constraint, not usage guidance. There is no indication of when to prefer this over create_note_relationship, delete_note_relationship, or other note-relationship tools, and no stated prerequisites.

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