Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AI Notes MCP Server

AI Notes MCP Server

by ibrahimbelkahla
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Update note

update_note

Modify an existing note's title, content, or tags; only the fields you provide are changed.

Instructions

Change the title, content or tags of an existing note. Only the fields you pass are changed.

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>"
    },
    "name": "update_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe note id
tagsNoReplaces all existing tags
titleNo
contentNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden alone. It usefully discloses patch semantics (omitted fields are untouched), which is real value beyond the schema, but it omits what a missing/unauthorized id does, whether tag updates replace existing tags, and what the call returns.

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 sentences, no waste, and the scope statement is front-loaded ahead of the patch-semantics clarification.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition gives the essentials but leaves gaps: required-id behavior, tag replacement semantics, and failure modes are all absent. Adequate, not 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 coverage is 50%, and the description only restates the three field names the schema already lists without adding format or constraint detail (max lengths, that tags replace rather than append). It also says nothing about the required id parameter. Baseline 3 given partial coverage and minimal added meaning.

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 names a specific verb (change) and resource (an existing note) and enumerates the mutable fields: title, content, tags. That clearly separates it from add_note and delete_note, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The line 'Only the fields you pass are changed' implies partial-update usage, so an agent knows to send just the fields it wants to modify. But the description never says when to reach for update_note instead of add_note or delete_note, nor does it mention prerequisites such as owning the note or erroring on a missing id.

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