ActiveCampaign MCP

update_a_note

Idempotent

Update an existing note in ActiveCampaign by providing the note ID and new details such as content, related object type, and related object ID.

Instructions

🟡 WRITE · updates data · Notes · PUT /notes/{id}

Update a note

Modifies an existing record in place. Idempotent.

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_a_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	ID of the note to update
`body`	No	Request body (application/json).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'WRITE · updates data', the HTTP method (PUT), and reinforcing idempotency. This provides context beyond annotations, though it could mention side effects like overwriting fields.

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?

The description is short and includes key details (operation type, HTTP method, idempotency). However, it mixes formatting with icons and line breaks, which may be noisy. Still, it is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 description covers the basic action but omits return value information (no output schema provided). For a write tool, agents might need to know what the response contains (e.g., updated note object). With 2 parameters and nested objects, more context on behavior and output would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters described in input schema). The description does not add any extra information about parameters, such as the meaning of 'reltype' or 'relid'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema handles the burden.

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 clearly states 'Update a note' and 'Modifies an existing record in place,' specifying the verb (update) and resource (note). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_a_deal_note or update_a_account_note, which could lead to confusion if the agent needs to choose between them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given sibling tools like update_a_deal_note and update_a_account_note, the description should clarify scope or context (e.g., 'for notes not associated with a specific entity'). Without this, an agent may misuse the tool.

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

Deploy Server