apex-memory

log_append

Append a narrative entry to existing knowledge pages, recording domain, operation, source, and outcome for traceable agent memory.

Instructions

Append a narrative log entry. The database stamps the time; pages must exist in the store.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>",
      "op": "<op>",
      "pages": "<pages>",
      "source": "<source>",
      "outcome": "<outcome>"
    },
    "name": "log_append"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`op`	Yes
`pages`	Yes
`domain`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`outcome`	Yes
`task_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add real behavioral facts: the timestamp is server-assigned (so the caller must not supply one) and page references are validated against the store. It says nothing about whether entries are immutable, what happens on validation failure, or whether the appended entry is returned.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action first and the constraint second. Nothing is padded and nothing repeats the tool name or schema.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a six-parameter, five-required append operation with no annotations and no output schema, this is thin. The agent still lacks the semantics of five required parameters and any notion of the result, which is a substantial gap for a write tool.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. Only "pages" is touched (via the existence constraint); op, domain, source, outcome, and task_id are given no meaning anywhere, leaving an agent to guess at their accepted values and format.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Append a narrative log entry"), which is far more informative than the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the sibling log_query (retrieval) or explain what a "narrative log entry" contains relative to the other note-patching siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

A concrete precondition is stated — "pages must exist in the store" — which tells the agent this cannot be the first call against an unknown page. There is no guidance on when to log versus when to use log_query, brief, or status_item, so the when-to-use decision is only implied.

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

Deploy Server