NoteKing MCP

noteking_update_project

Update a project's name or description in NoteKing by supplying its ID and new values, keeping project details current.

Instructions

Update an existing project's name or description in NoteKing

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_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Unique identifier of the project to update
`name`	No	New name for the project
`description`	No	New description for the project

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether this is a partial update (only id is required, so fields are presumably optional), whether omitted fields are preserved, whether a nonexistent id errors, or what a successful call returns or affects.

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 and no redundancy. It is efficiently written, though its brevity leaves little room for the behavioral context a mutation tool needs.

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?

The tool is simple (3 params, no nesting, no output schema) and the schema is fully documented, so the core information is present. Without annotations, however, the agent still lacks confirmation of partial-update semantics and error behavior for a write operation.

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 schema already explains id, name, and description. The description only restates that name and description are the updatable fields and adds no semantics about format, constraints, or how partial updates interact with omitted parameters.

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 an existing project') and names the two mutable fields, which clearly separates it from create_project, delete_project, and get_project. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

'Existing project' implies the project must already exist, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over noteking_update_note or other siblings, no prerequisites, and no statement about what happens if only one field is supplied.

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

Deploy Server