CherryTree MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_node_content

Update CherryTree node content by replacing or appending plain text or rich XML. Automatic rollback with audit report ensures safe edits.

Instructions

Update content of a node.

WARNING: With append=False this REPLACES all body content (text, codeboxes, images, tables). Use append=True to safely add content at the end.

Returns: Confirmation message followed by byte-by-byte audit report. On XML parse failure, backup is restored automatically (ROLLBACK).

Args: node_id: Node ID. content: Plain text to set or append (ignored if content_xml is set). content_xml: Raw CherryTree XML body — supports full formatting. Accepts any combination of: segments with formatting attributes (weight="heavy" for bold, foreground="#RRRRGGGGBBBB", background, style="italic", underline="single", strikethrough="true", scale="h1"-"h6"|"small"|"sup"|"sub", family="monospace", justification, link="webs URL"|"node UID"|"file BASE64"|"fold BASE64", indent), (char_offset, syntax_highlighting, frame_width, frame_height), (char_offset, col_widths, with rows/cells), (char_offset, anchor, filename, link). char_offset = position in concatenated plain text of all where the widget renders; each widget occupies exactly 1 char. append: True = append, False = replace.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`append`	No
`content`	No
`node_id`	Yes
`content_xml`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description shoulders the full transparency burden. It explicitly discloses the destructive replacement behavior, the automatic ROLLBACK on XML parse failure, and the byte-by-byte audit report return. These are non-obvious consequences an agent must know before calling the tool.

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 warning is front-loaded, and the Args section is cleanly organized. Although the content_xml portion is long, every detail is load-bearing for correct invocation, such as link formats, char_offset behavior, and supported widget attributes. There are no filler sentences.

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?

The description covers destructive behavior, rollback safety, return shape, and all parameter semantics. Since an output schema exists, it correctly avoids re-detailing return values. The combination of the warning, append/replace explanation, and full XML spec gives an agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: node_id, content, content_xml, and append each receive meaningful prose definitions, including the precedence rule for content vs content_xml and a detailed specification of accepted XML elements, formatting attributes, and char_offset semantics. This adds substantial value beyond the bare 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?

The description opens with 'Update content of a node,' a specific verb-plus-resource statement, and further clarifies scope by explicitly distinguishing body content (text, codeboxes, images, tables) from general node attributes. This separates it from sibling tools like update_node_properties without requiring an agent to inspect schemas.

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 gives clear operational guidance: 'Use append=True to safely add content at the end' and warns that append=False destroys existing content. It also clarifies that content is ignored when content_xml is set. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for specialized appends, but the relevant call-mode guidance is direct and actionable.

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

Deploy Server