Continuity by Ouroboros Apps

upsert canon entry

upsert_canon_entry

DestructiveIdempotent

Save a fact or revise canon only after the user approves it. Preserve the existing title/kind. LOCKED requires approval as established fact; brainstorming is not approval. Existing entries require expectedRevision from retrieval; conflicting edits fail without overwriting. Identical retries leave revision history unchanged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes
`tags`	No
`canon`	No	false marks a temporary, alternate, or what-if entry as non-canon. Omit to keep the current value; new entries default to canon.
`title`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`content`	Yes
`expiresAt`	No	Optional ISO 8601 date or datetime after which a non-canon or temporary entry expires. Omit to keep, null to clear.
`projectId`	Yes
`revisionReason`	No
`expectedRevision`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 16, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / canon

Added value: +{
+  "description": "false marks a temporary, alternate, or what-if entry as non-canon. Omit to keep the current value; new entries default to canon.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / expiresAt

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "maxLength": 40,
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Optional ISO 8601 date or datetime after which a non-canon or temporary entry expires. Omit to keep, null to clear."
+}

First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds substantial value beyond annotations: explains approval requirement, optimistic concurrency via expectedRevision, conflict failure without overwrite, and idempotent retry behavior. Annotations already signal destructive/idempotent, but the description clarifies the failure semantics.

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?

Five dense sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the approval prerequisite. Slightly terse but each sentence carries behavioral weight.

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?

For a 10-param mutation with output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the critical approval and conflict semantics but leaves several parameters ('canon', 'expiresAt', 'revisionReason') and the return shape unexplained. Adequate but with notable 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 coverage is only 20%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies expectedRevision ('from retrieval; conflicting edits fail without overwriting') and implicitly the title/kind preservation, but other parameters (canon, expiresAt, revisionReason, tags) get no mention. Baseline 3 given partial compensation.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Save a fact or revise canon') and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the approval precondition. No sibling is explicitly named as an alternative, keeping it from a 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides strong when-to-use guidance: 'only after the user approves it,' 'LOCKED requires approval as established fact; brainstorming is not approval.' It does not explicitly name search_story_canon or get_canon_history as the retrieval alternative, but the workflow is clear.

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

All Continuity by Ouroboros Apps tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.