google-keep-mcp

update_note

Modify an existing Google Keep note's title, body, color, pin, or archive status.

Instructions

Update an existing note's properties.

Args: note_id: The ID of the note to update. title: New title (omit to keep current). text: New body text (omit to keep current; only for text notes). color: New color name. pinned: New pinned status. archived: New archived status.

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>"
    },
    "name": "update_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	No
`color`	No
`title`	No
`pinned`	No
`note_id`	Yes
`archived`	No

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?

Discloses basic mutation behavior (update) and a constraint (text field only for text notes). No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; however, it does not mention side effects like timestamp updates or reverting archives.

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 front-loaded with the purpose statement and uses a structured Args list. It is efficient given six parameters, though could be slightly more concise.

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?

No information about return values or permissions, but an output schema exists to assist. For a mutation tool, more context on success/failure indicators would improve completeness.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds essential meaning: 'omit to keep current' for optional parameters and 'only for text notes' for the text field. This clarifies usage beyond the raw schema.

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 it updates an existing note's properties, using the verb 'update' and resource 'note'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_note and delete_note, but does not explicitly differentiate from bulk_update_notes or other update siblings.

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 such as bulk_update_notes or trash_note. The description does not mention prerequisites, when to omit parameters, or when not to use this tool.

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

Deploy Server