Skip to main content
Glama
sayranovv
by sayranovv

update_note

Modify existing notes by appending new content to specified files, maintaining organized documentation within the Notes MCP Server.

Instructions

Update the content of an existing note

Args: filename: Note filename content: New content (will be appended)

Returns: Confirmation message of update

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameYes
contentYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'update_note' tool. It appends new content to an existing note file, including a timestamp, and returns a confirmation message.
    @mcp.tool()
    def update_note(filename: str, content: str) -> str:
        """
        Update the content of an existing note
        
        Args:
            filename: Note filename
            content: New content (will be appended)
        
        Returns:
            Confirmation message of update
        """
        ensure_notes_dir()
        filepath = os.path.join(NOTES_DIR, filename)
        
        if not os.path.exists(filepath):
            return f"Note '{filename}' not found"
        
        with open(filepath, "a", encoding="utf-8") as f:
            f.write(f"\n\n**Updated:** {datetime.now().strftime('%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S')}\n\n{content}\n")
        
        return f"Note '{filename}' updated"
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 states the tool updates content and that content 'will be appended,' which adds behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling (e.g., if note doesn't exist), or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured but could be more integrated; however, every sentence adds value without waste. It's efficient but not perfectly streamlined.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (returns confirmation message), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and complexity from sibling tools, it should provide more context on usage and behavior. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 adds meaning by explaining 'filename' as the note filename and 'content' as new content that will be appended. This clarifies beyond the schema's basic titles, but doesn't provide format details (e.g., file extensions, content constraints). Baseline is 3 as it partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update the content of an existing note.' It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('note'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'create_note' or 'read_note' beyond mentioning 'existing note.' This is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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., note must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'create_note' for new notes or 'read_note' for viewing. Usage is implied by the action 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.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sayranovv/notes-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server