Veynod

Propose Document Change

propose_document_change

Submit a reviewed proposal instead of writing a policy-gated document.

The proposal is queued as PENDING; only a human can apply or reject it.
Call request_human_review(kind="proposal", key=<proposal_id>) to record the
handoff and get the exact human action endpoint.

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": {
      "doc_key": "<doc_key>",
      "content": "<content>",
      "base_version": "<base_version>"
    },
    "name": "propose_document_change"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No		single
`note`	No
`title`	No
`content`	Yes
`doc_key`	Yes
`frontmatter`	No
`base_version`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional. Retries with the same key and arguments within 24 h replay the first result (replayed=true) without a second write; a different body with the same key is idempotency_key_reused.
`session_batch_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the proposal is queued as PENDING and only a human can apply or reject it, which tells the agent the write does not take effect immediately. It omits concurrency/conflict behavior around base_version and what happens if the document changed underneath, which are the main behavioral risks for this call.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the alternative, with no filler; every sentence contributes. The only soft spot is "a reviewed proposal," which is slightly ambiguous given that human review happens after submission.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the PENDING/human-approval lifecycle is well covered. But for a 9-parameter mutation with three required fields and near-zero schema documentation, the description leaves base_version, mode, and frontmatter semantics entirely to guesswork, which is a real gap for correct invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 11%, so the description carries the burden and does not meet it: doc_key, content, base_version, mode (default "single" — other values never explained), note, title, frontmatter, and session_batch_id get no meaning from the prose. The one identifier it does reference (proposal_id) is not even an input parameter, leaving base_version's optimistic-concurrency role completely undisclosed.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Submit a ... proposal") and immediately contrasts it with the direct-write path ("instead of writing a policy-gated document"), which is exactly the sibling ambiguity that matters here (upsert_shared_doc, patch_doc_section). An agent can pick between those paths without opening either schema.

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?

It states the selecting condition clearly: use this when a direct write is policy-gated, and it prescribes the follow-up call to request_human_review(kind="proposal", ...) for the handoff. It stops short of naming the direct-write alternatives explicitly or saying when a proposal is NOT needed (e.g., ungated docs), so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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

All Veynod 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.