Skip to main content
Glama
Inkdrop MCP Server

Inkdrop MCP Server

Official
by inkdropapp

update-note

Modify an existing Inkdrop note by changing only the fields you provide; omitted fields remain unchanged. Edit title, Markdown body, tags, notebook, or status as needed.

Instructions

Update the existing note in the database. Only the fields you provide will be updated; omitted fields remain unchanged.

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>",
      "_rev": "<_rev>"
    },
    "name": "update-note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_idYesThe unique document ID which should start with `note:` and the remains are randomly generated string
_revYesThis is a CouchDB specific field. The current MVCC-token/revision of this document (mandatory and immutable).
bodyNoThe content of the note in Markdown. NOTE: Do not escape special characters like `\n`.
tagsNoAn array of tag IDs to assign to the note. Call `list-tags` or `read-tag` to retrieve available tags. You can create a new tag with `create-tag` tool if necessary.
titleNoThe note title
bookIdNoThe notebook ID. Specify `template` to turn the note into a custom note template
statusNoThe status of the note

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.6.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / bookId / description
      Previous value: -"The notebook ID"New value: +"The notebook ID. Specify `template` to turn the note into a custom note template"
    • changedInput schema / properties / bookId / pattern
      Previous value: -"^(book:|trash$)"New value: +"^(book:|trash$|template$)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / tags / items / format
      Added value: +"starts_with"
  2. First observedv1.4.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the merge/partial-update behavior, but omits how the required `_rev` revision token affects outcomes, such as conflict errors on stale revisions, or what permissions are required.

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, zero waste, and the key behavioral rule is front-loaded directly after the purpose statement.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should mention the `_rev` concurrency requirement and the failure/conflict mode. It covers partial-update semantics adequately but leaves the most consequential behavior undisclosed.

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%, so every one of the 7 parameters, including enum and pattern constraints, is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond restating the omitted-fields-unchanged rule, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Update the existing note'), which is clear on its own. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling `patch-note`, whose purpose appears to overlap given the partial-update semantics described here.

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 sentence 'Only the fields you provide will be updated; omitted fields remain unchanged' implies partial-update usage, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over `patch-note` or `create-note`, nor any stated prerequisites.

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