Skip to main content
Glama
inkdropapp

Inkdrop MCP Server

Official
by inkdropapp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

update-tag

Update an existing tag in Inkdrop with its ID and the fields to change. Only the given fields are modified; the rest remain unchanged, saving you from reading the full tag first.

Instructions

Update the existing tag in the database. Only the fields you provide will be updated; omitted fields remain unchanged, so you do not need to read the tag first. Call list-tags or read-tag to find the tag ID.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_idYesThe unique document ID which should start with `tag:` and the remains are randomly generated string
_revNoThis is a CouchDB specific field. The current MVCC-token/revision of this document. Optional: the server merges your fields into the stored tag, so it is only needed as an optimistic-concurrency guard. Pass it when you have read the tag first and want the update to fail on a conflicting concurrent edit.
nameNoThe name of the tag
colorNoThe color type of the tag

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / _rev / description
      Previous value: -"This is a CouchDB specific field. The current MVCC-token/revision of this document (mandatory and immutable)."New value: +"This is a CouchDB specific field. The current MVCC-token/revision of this document. Optional: the server merges your fields into the stored tag, so it is only needed as an optimistic-concurrency guard. Pass it when you have read the tag first and want the update to fail on a conflicting concurrent edit."
    • removedInput schema / properties / color / default
      Removed value: -"default"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "_id",
-  "_rev",
-  "name"
-]New value: +[
+  "_id"
+]
  2. First observedv1.4.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It goes beyond the name by disclosing partial-update semantics ('omitted fields remain unchanged') and explains that a prior read is unnecessary. However, it does not mention behavior on nonexistent tags, concurrency errors beyond the schema's _rev note, or any permission requirements, leaving some gaps.

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?

The description is three sentences and zero waste. It front-loads the action, then the crucial merge semantics, and ends with a practical instruction for obtaining the tag ID. Every sentence earns its place.

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 4-parameter tool with 100% documented schema and no output schema, this description does well: it explains the tool's operation, clarifies the update behavior, and tells the caller how to find the _id. Missing details such as error behavior on a missing tag are minor given the schema already covers all parameters and no return-value explanation is required.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a complementary semantic: only the fields you provide are updated, which helps convey how the optional parameters (_rev, name, color) interact with the stored document. It doesn't add per-field detail beyond the schema, but the partial-update framing does have some value.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Update the existing tag in the database', which clearly distinguishes it from create-tag, read-tag, and list-tags. Calling out 'existing tag' directly signals this is not a create operation, and the instruction to find the tag ID reinforces its role among siblings.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Call list-tags or read-tag to find the tag ID' and 'you do not need to read the tag first' because updates are partial. It doesn't explicitly say 'use create-tag for new tags', but the 'existing tag' distinction and sibling names make the boundary clear.

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