KSJ MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

upload_capture

Process a handwritten journal page photo: run OCR, extract tags, store the capture, and detect connections. Pages that cannot be filed are saved as Wild Art without rejection.

Instructions

Process a journal page photo: run OCR, parse the template, extract schema
tags, store the capture, copy the image to the knowledge base, and detect
connections to existing captures.

Accept-by-default: the page is always stored. If it can't be filed
normally — no readable template ID, an ID too doubtful to trust, or a page
ID that is already taken — it is stored as a Wild Art (WA) entry with the
reason recorded, never rejected and never overwriting anything. Review
WA entries with list_by_tag(entry_type="WA") and move them to their
proper type with promote_capture().

Args:
    image_path: Absolute path to the image file (JPG, PNG, TIFF, etc.)
    force:      Set to True to REPLACE an existing capture with the same
                template ID in the same volume (default False — the new
                page is filed as WA with reason id_conflict instead).
    volume:     Which journal/book this page belongs to. 0 = automatic:
                a volume written on the page (e.g. "V2 RC-001") wins,
                otherwise the stored current_volume setting (default 1).
    wa_reason:  File the image as Wild Art on purpose. Use "loose_capture"
                for anything off-journal — a napkin sketch, sticky note,
                whiteboard, back of a receipt (no volume or page ID
                needed). Other values: manual, other.
    wa_detail:  Free-text note for a WA entry, e.g. "napkin", "whiteboard".

Returns a summary of what was found and stored, including the strongest
connection detected.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`force`	No
`volume`	No
`wa_detail`	No
`wa_reason`	No
`image_path`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv3.9.0Oct 2, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / volume

Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "title": "Volume",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / wa_detail

Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Wa Detail",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / wa_reason

Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Wa Reason",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Feb 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses accept-by-default (never rejected), the WA fallback with reasons recorded, and that force replaces an existing capture without overwriting otherwise. It omits permission/auth requirements and any rate or size limits.

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?

Content is front-loaded with purpose then fallback semantics and args. Some prose is slightly verbose, but each section serves a distinct need, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

For a multi-step mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the pipeline, fallback behavior, and all parameters thoroughly. Output schema exists so return details need not be explained, and the added note about the strongest connection is a useful touch.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents all five parameters including image_path formats, the exact meaning of force, the volume=0 automatic resolution rule, and valid wa_reason values. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb (process/upload a journal page photo) and enumerates the full pipeline: OCR, template parsing, tag extraction, storage, image copy, and connection detection. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like manual_capture, bulk_upload, and correct_ocr.

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 gives clear conditional usage: use wa_reason='loose_capture' for off-journal items and force=True to replace an existing capture. It also routes WA follow-up to list_by_tag and promote_capture. It stops short of explicitly stating when to pick this tool over manual_capture or bulk_upload.

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