NoteDiscovery MCP Server

edit_note

Edit part of an existing note by replacing one exact piece of text instead of resending the whole note. The old text must match exactly once or nothing is written.

Instructions

Edit part of an existing note by replacing one exact piece of text, without resending the whole note. old_str must match the note content (as returned by get_note) exactly once, including whitespace and line breaks; otherwise nothing is written. To edit a section, include its heading in old_str. Prefer this over create_note for changes to existing notes.

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "old_str": "<old_str>",
      "new_str": "<new_str>"
    },
    "name": "edit_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	Path to the existing note
`new_str`	Yes	Replacement text. Use an empty string to delete old_str.
`old_str`	Yes	Exact text to replace. Must appear exactly once in the note; add surrounding lines if needed to make it unique.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.34.0Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the atomicity guarantee ('otherwise nothing is written'), the exact-once match requirement, and whitespace/line-break sensitivity. It does not describe the success response or any permission/conflict behavior, which are the remaining gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: what it does, the hard matching constraint with its failure mode, and the sibling routing rule. Front-loaded with the purpose, no filler.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what matters most: matching semantics, failure behavior, and the practical uniqueness workaround. The absence of any statement about the success result or partial-match edge cases is the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it ties old_str to content 'as returned by get_note' and explains the practical trick of including a section heading to reach uniqueness. That is useful disambiguation rather than restatement.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Edit part of an existing note by replacing one exact piece of text', and adds the useful scope detail that the whole note need not be resent. It distinguishes itself from create_note, but not from the closest sibling, append_to_note, leaving one likely confusion point unresolved.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule ('Prefer this over create_note for changes to existing notes') and implies the prerequisite of reading the note via get_note to obtain exact source text. It omits any guidance on when to use append_to_note instead, which is the main adjacent alternative for modifying a note.

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