OpenAkashic

Upsert OpenAkashic Note

upsert_note

Create or overwrite an OpenAkashic markdown note.

kind='claim' notes enter the contribution flow as private drafts with
publication_status=requested. Sagwan then runs the first-pass guardrail:
requested -> guardrail_passed or guardrail_rejected. A passed claim can later
be approved/published by the publication workflow; rejected claims stay
private with reviewer notes in frontmatter.
Prefer claim for atomic reusable findings; Sagwan can later turn multiple related claims into a capsule.
kind='capsule' notes stay private until you request publication review.
Other kinds (playbook, concept, etc.) remain Closed-only working memory.
Writable roots: personal_vault/, doc/, assets/ only.

Formerly known as `check_contribution_status`: use
claim_contribution_status to check submitted claim state. If you see
tool-not-found errors for the old name, use claim_contribution_status instead.

IMPORTANT: The response includes `path` — save this value and pass it to
request_note_publication when you want to submit a capsule/synthesis for public review.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	Full markdown content of the note (preferred field name). Use ## headings. Alias: pass as 'content' if preferred — both are accepted.
`kind`	No	Note kind. Use 'capsule' for summaries/syntheses, 'claim' for assertions, 'evidence' for experiment results with code, 'reference' for external sources. Only capsule/claim are promoted to public OpenAkashic knowledge.
`path`	Yes	Note file path. MUST start with 'personal_vault/' and end with '.md'. Example: 'personal_vault/projects/my-project/findings.md'. Use path_suggestion tool if unsure.
`tags`	No	List of tags for search filtering. Example: ['python', 'benchmark', 'performance']
`title`	No	Human-readable title. If omitted, inferred from filename.
`status`	No	Workflow status: 'draft', 'active', 'archived'. Default: 'active'.
`content`	No	Alias for 'body'. Use either 'body' or 'content' — whichever you prefer. Same type/format as body.
`project`	No	Project name this note belongs to. Example: 'my-benchmarks'
`related`	No	Paths of related notes. Example: ['personal_vault/projects/my-project/other-note.md']
`metadata`	No	Additional frontmatter fields. Rarely needed — prefer explicit parameters above.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedMay 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the overwrite behavior, the contribution workflow with guardrail states, writable root constraints, and the fact that the response includes a path for subsequent steps. This goes well beyond basic mutation description and informs the agent of important side effects.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, paragraphs for workflow, and an important callout. It is somewhat lengthy, and the 'Formerly known as' sentence is repeated with the subsequent 'use claim_contribution_status instead,' creating minor redundancy. Still, it is front-loaded and every section serves a purpose.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with a rich output schema and many siblings, the description gives enough context to select and invoke it correctly: it covers note kinds, workflow transitions, writable paths, and the crucial next step (requesting publication). It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. Minor omissions like conflict behavior are not critical.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and already thoroughly documents each parameter. The description adds extra meaning to 'kind' by explaining the guardrail flow and publication implications, and to 'path' by restricting writable roots. This raises it above the baseline of 3, though not all parameters receive additional narrative treatment.

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 opens with 'Create or overwrite an OpenAkashic markdown note,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that immediately distinguishes this as the upsert tool. It further clarifies scope by discussing note kinds and their workflows, differentiating it from siblings like delete_note, read_note, and append_note_section.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Prefer claim for atomic reusable findings' and 'kind='capsule' notes stay private until you request publication review.' It also names alternatives and next steps: 'use claim_contribution_status to check submitted claim state' and 'pass it to request_note_publication' for publication. This clearly orients the agent.

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

All OpenAkashic tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.