Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-romm

mcp-romm

by lodordev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

romm_update_note

Update a ROM's note by changing title, content, tags, or visibility. Specify the ROM ID and note ID to target the note.

Instructions

Edit an existing note. Only the fields you provide are changed.

rom_id: The ROM's ID. note_id: The note's ID (from romm_rom_notes). title: New title (empty = unchanged). content: New body (empty = unchanged). tags: New tag list (omit to leave unchanged). is_public: New visibility (omit to leave 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": {
      "rom_id": "<rom_id>",
      "note_id": "<note_id>"
    },
    "name": "romm_update_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rom_idYes
note_idYes
titleNo
contentNo
tagsNo
is_publicNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It explains that only provided fields are changed and details the behavior of each parameter (e.g., 'New title (empty = unchanged)'). Does not mention auth or side effects, but sufficient for this simple update.

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?

Description is short: one-sentence summary followed by parameter explanations. Front-loaded with purpose. No superfluous words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given 6 parameters, 2 required, and no annotations, the description covers all parameters' semantics. Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Complete and self-contained.

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 coverage is 0%, but description compensates fully. It explains each parameter's meaning and behavior, including edge cases (e.g., empty title means unchanged, omit tags to leave unchanged). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Edit an existing note' with the verb 'edit' and resource 'note'. It distinguishes from siblings like romm_add_note (add) and romm_delete_note (delete).

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?

Description implies usage context: edit an existing note with partial updates. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the sibling list provides context. Still clear enough.

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