Easel

by nemodleo

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

update_note

Edit a note's text, position, width, page, color, size, and bold or italic styling by ID to update canvas annotations.

Instructions

Edit a note (text, position, width, page, color, size, bold, italic).

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": "update_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`w`	No
`x`	No
`y`	No
`id`	Yes
`bold`	No
`page`	No
`size`	No
`text`	No
`color`	No
`italic`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It identifies this as a mutation ('Edit') and lists fields, but does not disclose permissions required, whether updates are partial or full replacement, what happens to omitted fields, or whether changes are reversible.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and the parenthetical field list is compact and scannable. The structure prioritizes the core action before the editable attributes.

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?

For a mutation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition is too thin. It lists several editable fields but does not cover the required id, coordinate or color formats, update behavior, or return information.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely maps some fields ('position' for x/y, 'width' for w) and lists names without explaining formats, units, or semantics. It also omits the required id parameter entirely.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Edit a note') and enumerates editable fields, making the operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as add_note, delete_note, or list_notes, but the edit verb implies the distinction.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus add_note, delete_note, or list_notes. It also omits prerequisites such as needing an existing note id, leaving usage to be inferred from the verb alone.

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