Skip to main content
Glama

update_note

Modify the title or content of an existing note in TaskFlow MCP's task management system using the note's ID and request ID.

Instructions

Update an existing note's title or content.

Provide the 'requestId' and 'noteId', and optionally 'title' and/or 'content' to update.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestIdYes
noteIdYes
titleNo
contentNo

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'update_note' MCP tool. It destructures the input arguments and delegates the update logic to the TaskFlowService.updateNote method.
    async update_note(args: any) {
      const { requestId, noteId, title, content } = args ?? {};
      return service.updateNote(String(requestId), String(noteId), { title, content });
    },
  • Tool definition including name, description, and input schema for 'update_note'. This object is exported and used for registration.
    export const UPDATE_NOTE_TOOL: Tool = {
      name: "update_note",
      description:
        "Update an existing note's title or content.\n\n" +
        "Provide the 'requestId' and 'noteId', and optionally 'title' and/or 'content' to update.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          requestId: { type: "string" },
          noteId: { type: "string" },
          title: { type: "string" },
          content: { type: "string" },
        },
        required: ["requestId", "noteId"],
      },
    };
  • Registration of the UPDATE_NOTE_TOOL in the server's listTools handler, making it available via MCP protocol.
    this.server.setRequestHandler(ListToolsRequestSchema, async () => ({
      tools: [
        PLAN_TASK_TOOL,
        GET_NEXT_TASK_TOOL,
        MARK_TASK_DONE_TOOL,
        OPEN_TASK_DETAILS_TOOL,
        LIST_REQUESTS_TOOL,
        ADD_TASKS_TO_REQUEST_TOOL,
        UPDATE_TASK_TOOL,
        DELETE_TASK_TOOL,
        ADD_SUBTASKS_TOOL,
        MARK_SUBTASK_DONE_TOOL,
        UPDATE_SUBTASK_TOOL,
        DELETE_SUBTASK_TOOL,
        EXPORT_TASK_STATUS_TOOL,
        ADD_NOTE_TOOL,
        UPDATE_NOTE_TOOL,
        DELETE_NOTE_TOOL,
        ADD_DEPENDENCY_TOOL,
        GET_PROMPTS_TOOL,
        SET_PROMPTS_TOOL,
        UPDATE_PROMPTS_TOOL,
        REMOVE_PROMPTS_TOOL,
        ARCHIVE_COMPLETED_REQUESTS_TOOL,
        LIST_ARCHIVED_REQUESTS_TOOL,
        RESTORE_ARCHIVED_REQUEST_TOOL,
      ],
  • The core service method implementing the note update logic: finds the note, applies updates with sanitization, updates timestamp, and persists changes.
    public async updateNote(requestId: string, noteId: string, updates: { title?: string; content?: string }) {
      await this.loadTasks();
      const req = this.getRequest(requestId);
      if (!req) return { status: "error", message: "Request not found" };
    
      if (!req.notes) return { status: "error", message: "No notes found for this request" };
    
      const noteIndex = req.notes.findIndex((n) => n.id === noteId);
      if (noteIndex === -1) return { status: "error", message: "Note not found" };
    
      const note = req.notes[noteIndex];
      if (updates.title) note.title = sanitizeString(updates.title);
      if (updates.content) note.content = sanitizeString(updates.content);
      note.updatedAt = new Date().toISOString();
    
      await this.saveTasks();
    
      return { status: "note_updated", message: `Note ${noteId} has been updated.`, note };
    }
  • JSON schema definition for 'update_note' input validation in the shared schemas module (matches the tool's inputSchema).
    update_note: {
      type: "object",
      properties: {
        requestId: { type: "string" },
        noteId: { type: "string" },
        title: { type: "string" },
        content: { type: "string" },
      },
      required: ["requestId", "noteId"],
    },

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

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 burden. It mentions the tool updates an existing note, implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions, whether updates are reversible, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter guidance. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the action and inputs, with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple update tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but misses behavioral details like side effects, permissions, or return values, which are critical for safe agent use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all four parameters ('requestId', 'noteId', 'title', 'content') and specifies required vs. optional, adding value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter meanings (e.g., what 'requestId' refers to) or formats, leaving gaps.

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 the verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing note's title or content'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_note' (creation) and 'delete_note' (deletion), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_subtask' or 'update_task'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing note), compare to siblings like 'add_note' or 'delete_note', or specify context for updates. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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