Slipbox MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

slipbox_update_note

Update an existing note by modifying only the specified fields—title, content, type, tags, or references—while keeping all other data intact. Clear tags or references by passing empty strings.

Instructions

Update an existing note.

Only provided fields are updated; omitted fields remain unchanged. Pass empty string for tags to clear all tags. Pass empty string for references to clear all references.

Constraint: notes with note_type='literature' must have at least one reference. If you are promoting a note to 'literature', pass the citation in references in the same call.

Args: note_id: The ID of the note to update title: New title (optional) content: New content (optional) note_type: New type: fleeting/literature/permanent/structure/hub (optional) tags: New comma-separated tags, or empty string to clear (optional) references: New newline-separated citations, or empty string to clear (optional)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tags`	No
`title`	No
`content`	No
`note_id`	Yes
`note_type`	No
`references`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.4Sep 22, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {
+      "title": "Result",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "title": "slipbox_update_noteOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that omitted fields remain unchanged, that empty strings clear tags/references, and that literature notes require at least one reference. It does not cover error behavior for missing note_ids or response details, but the key behavioral traits are surfaced.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well organized: behavioral notes come first, followed by a compact Args list. There is minor redundancy between the prose and the Args section regarding empty-string clearing, but no wasted sentences overall.

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?

Given no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers all six parameters plus the critical literature-reference constraint. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. It could add behavior for nonexistent notes, but the description is substantially complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the Args section fully compensates by explaining every parameter's meaning, allowed note_type values, comma-separated tags, newline-separated references, and empty-string clearing behavior. This is exactly the kind of parameter-level detail an agent needs.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing note', so it is unambiguous that this tool mutates an existing slipbox note. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like slipbox_create_note or slipbox_delete_note, but the verb+resource combination leaves little room for confusion.

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?

The description conveys when to use the tool by explaining partial-update semantics and the promotion constraint to literature notes. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of create/delete' or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough that an agent can route appropriately.

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