Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
NoteKing MCP

NoteKing MCP

by leouofa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

noteking_update_note

Update a note's title, Markdown body, project assignment, or pinned status by note ID, with optional rendered HTML in the response.

Instructions

Update a note's title, Markdown body, project assignment, or pinned status

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": "noteking_update_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesUnique identifier of the note to update
bodyNoUpdated Markdown body content
titleNoUpdated title for the note
pinnedNoPin or unpin the note
project_idNoReassign to a project ID or null for standalone
pinned_positionNoReorder pinned position
render_markdownNoWhether to return rendered HTML in the response

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing. It is silent on whether the update is a partial patch or a replacement, on permission/auth requirements, on reversibility, and on whether render_markdown affects only the response or persisted content. Only the bare fact of mutation is conveyed, and even that requires inferring from the verb 'Update'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is efficient and immediately scannable. It sits near the low end for the amount of content it delivers rather than for any redundant wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a seven-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should explain partial-update semantics and result behavior. It covers only the field list, leaving the agent unable to predict what happens to omitted fields or what the call returns.

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 parameter including pinned_position and render_markdown is already documented in the schema, warranting the baseline of 3. The description's enumeration of title/body/project/pinned mirrors the schema rather than adding meaning, and it does not mention pinned_position or render_markdown at all.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a note') plus the mutable field groups (title, Markdown body, project assignment, pinned status), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like noteking_toggle_pin or noteking_update_project, which overlap semantically with the pinned and project_id fields it advertises.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over noteking_toggle_pin for pin state or noteking_update_project for project reassignment, and no stated prerequisites. The description also omits the most important usage rule for an update tool: whether unspecified fields are left untouched (partial update) or cleared.

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