google-keep-mcp

update_list_item

Update a list item's text or checked status in a Google Keep note. Provide the note ID and item ID to target the specific item.

Instructions

Update a list item's text or checked status.

Args: note_id: The ID of the list note. item_id: The ID of the item to update. text: New item text (omit to keep current). checked: New checked status (omit to keep current).

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>",
      "item_id": "<item_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_list_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	No
`checked`	No
`item_id`	Yes
`note_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It reveals partial update behavior via 'omit to keep current' but does not address idempotency, permissions, error cases, or response format.

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 concise (5 lines) and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is clear, though a more structured format could improve scannability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately. Output schema exists for return values, so its omission is acceptable. However, no mention of error conditions or permissions, which would be expected for a mutation tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose and optionality (e.g., 'text: New item text (omit to keep current)'). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type info.

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 'Update a list item's text or checked status,' specifying a concrete verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_list_item and delete_list_item by focusing on modification.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for existing list items but lacks exclusions or context about prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server