google-keep-mcp

add_label_to_note

Add a label to a note, creating the label automatically if it doesn't exist.

Instructions

Add a label to a note. Creates the label if it doesn't exist.

Args: note_id: The ID of the note. label_name: The label name to add.

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": {
      "note_id": "<note_id>",
      "label_name": "<label_name>"
    },
    "name": "add_label_to_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note_id`	Yes
`label_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 16, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool creates the label if it doesn't exist—a key behavioral trait. However, it does not state whether adding a duplicate label is idempotent, errors, or ignored, nor does it cover authorization or rate limits. Minimal but present.

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 (two sentences plus argument docs). The 'Args' section is redundant with the schema, but the overall length is efficient. No fluff or unnecessary details.

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?

The tool has a simple interface (2 string params) and an output schema (not shown), so return values are covered. However, the description fails to explain edge cases: what if note_id is invalid? What if the label already exists on the note? What happens to the note's other labels? These gaps make it incomplete for real 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides basic definitions: 'note_id: The ID of the note' and 'label_name: The label name to add'. This adds value over the bare schema properties but is minimal—no formats, constraints, or examples.

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 clearly states 'Add a label to a note' with a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('label' to 'note'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_label' (which only creates a label) and 'remove_label_from_note'. The side-effect of creating the label if it doesn't exist adds clarity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_label' followed by 'add_label_to_note', or when not to use it (e.g., if the label might already be attached). No context about prerequisites or expected state is given.

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

Deploy Server