Skip to main content
Glama

kb_propose

Deposit a proposal to add or correct knowledge base content, leaving it as pending for a manager to approve or reject.

Instructions

Dépose une proposition d'ajout ou de correction dans une base. La proposition n'est PAS intégrée automatiquement : elle est déposée dans proposals/pending/ et attend la revue du gestionnaire, qui l'intègre ou la rejette selon les règles de la base (kb_governance). Limitation v0 : la résolution (intégration ou motif de rejet) n'est pas consultable via MCP — elle l'est par accès git direct au dépôt. kb_list avec include_pending_concerns permet de vérifier avant soumission qu'une proposition proche n'est pas déjà en attente. Aucune base n'est actuellement enregistrée.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseYesNom de la base (champ `name` du manifeste).
typeYesobservation : fait constaté, sans présumer d'un document existant. correction : contredit un contenu actuel. addition : complète un sujet déjà couvert. question : lacune identifiée, sans réponse fournie.
contentYesL'affirmation elle-même, en markdown. 16 Ko maximum.
sourcesYesD'où vient l'affirmation : URL, référence d'incident, constat terrain… Une entrée par ligne, sans retour à la ligne.
concernsYesSujet concerné, en une ligne. Sans retour à la ligne.
confidenceYes
submitted_byYesIdentité déclarée du contributeur — non authentifiée. Convention recommandée : `human:<id>`, `<agent>/<version>` ou `process:<id>`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that proposals are not auto-integrated, are stored in proposals/pending/, and require manager review. It also discloses a v0 limitation: resolution is not consultable via MCP and requires direct git access, plus the current absence of registered bases.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the primary action and then adds only high-value workflow constraints. Every sentence contributes something actionable: no auto-integration, review dependency, MCP resolution limitation, pre-check alternative, and current unusability. No filler is present.

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 proposal-submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the lifecycle, limitations, and pre-check workflow thoroughly. The main gap is that it does not describe what response or confirmation the agent should expect after submission beyond the pending-file location. Still, the context provided is substantial enough for safe invocation.

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 description coverage is already high at 86%, so the schema carries most of the parameter meaning. The description adds context about the base lifecycle and the pending state, but does not substantially enrich individual parameter semantics beyond the schema. This matches the baseline expected when structured parameter documentation is strong.

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 a specific verb and resource: "Dépose une proposition d'ajout ou de correction dans une base." It immediately distinguishes this from the sibling read/list/search tools by stating the proposal is not integrated automatically and is queued for review. The workflow context makes the tool's submission role 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?

The description gives concrete pre-submission guidance: use kb_list with include_pending_concerns to check for existing pending proposals. It also warns that "Aucune base n'est actuellement enregistrée," which effectively tells the agent the tool is not currently usable. It does not exhaustively state when alternatives should replace this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Movida/okf-hub'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server