Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sprinty

sprinty

by ebursztein
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

note_update

Update an existing note by its ID with new text, so sprint agents can revise recorded context without creating duplicate entries.

Instructions

Update a note by note id.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "note_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
textYes
agent_tokenNo
client_agent_idNo
claim_generationNo
client_session_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.2.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / agent_token
      Added value: +{
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / claim_generation
      Added value: +{
+  "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / client_agent_id
      Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 200,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / client_session_id
      Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 200,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv0.1.17
  3. Removedv0.1.15
  4. First observedv0.1.9

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing: it never says whether the update overwrites existing text, whether the note must be claimed first (the `claim_generation` parameter and item_claim/item_release siblings strongly imply a claim/concurrency model), or what permissions `agent_token` and `client_agent_id` represent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence is technically concise, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy. There is no front-loaded scope statement, no constraints, and no useful content beyond the tool name.

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

Completeness1/5

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

A six-parameter mutation tool with a claim-generation field, no annotations, and no output schema requires substantially more description. An agent cannot determine preconditions, required credentials, or the effect of the call from what is written.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Only `id` is gestured at ("by note id"); `text` is required but unmentioned, and the four concurrency/identity parameters (`agent_token`, `client_agent_id`, `claim_generation`, `client_session_id`) are completely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb+resource ("Update a note") is identifiable, and "by note id" clarifies the identifier, but the description essentially restates the tool name and never says what about the note is updatable (the schema only allows `text`). It also draws no boundary against siblings like note_add, note_get, or note_list.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools it is easily confused with (note_add for creation, note_get for reading). The agent must infer that this is the mutation counterpart to note_add.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools