Skip to main content
Glama
dweigend

Joplin MCP Server

by dweigend

update_note

Modify an existing note in Joplin by updating its title, content, folder location, or todo status using the note's ID.

Instructions

Update an existing note in Joplin.

Args:
    args: Note update parameters
        note_id: ID of note to update
        title: New title (optional)
        body: New content (optional)
        parent_id: New parent folder ID (optional)
        is_todo: New todo status (optional)

Returns:
    Dictionary containing the updated note data

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argsYes

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler function for 'update_note'. It validates input using UpdateNoteInput schema, calls JoplinAPI.update_note, and returns success/error response.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def update_note(args: UpdateNoteInput) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """Update an existing note in Joplin.
        
        Args:
            args: Note update parameters
                note_id: ID of note to update
                title: New title (optional)
                body: New content (optional)
                parent_id: New parent folder ID (optional)
                is_todo: New todo status (optional)
        
        Returns:
            Dictionary containing the updated note data
        """
        if not api:
            return {"error": "Joplin API client not initialized"}
        
        try:
            note = api.update_note(
                note_id=args.note_id,
                title=args.title,
                body=args.body,
                parent_id=args.parent_id,
                is_todo=args.is_todo
            )
            return {
                "status": "success",
                "note": {
                    "id": note.id,
                    "title": note.title,
                    "body": note.body,
                    "created_time": note.created_time.isoformat() if note.created_time else None,
                    "updated_time": note.updated_time.isoformat() if note.updated_time else None,
                    "is_todo": note.is_todo
                }
            }
        except Exception as e:
            logger.error(f"Error updating note: {e}")
            return {"error": str(e)}
  • Pydantic BaseModel schema defining input parameters for the update_note tool.
    class UpdateNoteInput(BaseModel):
        """Input parameters for updating a note."""
        note_id: str
        title: Optional[str] = None
        body: Optional[str] = None
        parent_id: Optional[str] = None
        is_todo: Optional[bool] = None
  • Helper method in JoplinAPI class that constructs the PUT request to update a note via Joplin REST API and parses the response into JoplinNote object.
    def update_note(
        self,
        note_id: str,
        title: str | None = None,
        body: str | None = None,
        parent_id: str | None = None,
        is_todo: bool | None = None
    ) -> JoplinNote:
        """Update an existing note.
    
        Args:
            note_id: ID of note to update
            title: New title
            body: New content
            parent_id: New parent folder ID
            is_todo: New todo status
    
        Returns:
            Updated JoplinNote object
        """
        data = {}
    
        if title is not None:
            data["title"] = title
    
        if body is not None:
            data["body"] = body
    
        if parent_id is not None:
            data["parent_id"] = parent_id
    
        if is_todo is not None:
            data["is_todo"] = is_todo
    
        response = self._make_request("PUT", f"notes/{note_id}", json=data)
        return JoplinNote.from_api_response(response)
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid note_id), or rate limits. The return statement mentions 'updated note data' but lacks detail on format or potential side effects.

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 clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet points for parameters, making it easy to scan. It's appropriately sized for a tool with multiple parameters, though the 'args' wrapper in the description adds minor redundancy with the schema.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter info but lacks behavioral details (e.g., mutation effects, error cases) and return value specifics. For a mutation tool with 1 parameter (though nested with 5 sub-parameters), this is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides a clear list of parameters (note_id, title, body, parent_id, is_todo) with brief explanations (e.g., 'ID of note to update', 'New title (optional)'), adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints (e.g., what happens if parent_id is invalid).

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update an existing note in Joplin.' This specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('note'), and it's distinct from siblings like create_note, delete_note, and get_note. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from import_markdown or search_notes, which might also modify notes indirectly.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the note_id), compare to create_note for new notes, or specify scenarios where update is appropriate over other operations. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dweigend/joplin-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server