apex-memory

move

Rename a note within its domain and rewrite all links in one transaction, preserving anchors; relocating a working note promotes it to owner-only project knowledge requiring a summary/header.

Instructions

Rename a note within its domain; every link to it is rewritten in the same transaction (anchors kept). Moving a working note out of /working/ promotes it into project knowledge: owner only, and it needs a summary and, if it has none, the page header. Index, status, log and decisions pages do not move.

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "new_path": "<new_path>"
    },
    "name": "move"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`summary`	No
`task_id`	No
`evidence`	No
`new_path`	Yes
`impl_status`	No
`decision_status`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: link rewriting happens in the same transaction, anchors are preserved, the operation is owner-only, and promotion requires a summary plus a page header if absent. It says nothing about failure modes (e.g. whether a partial move can occur), reversibility, or what is returned, which matters for a mutation tool.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and side effect, then the promotion rule and exclusions. The telegraphic second sentence ('owner only, and it needs a summary and, if it has none, the page header') is slightly compressed but every clause carries real constraint information.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it covers transactionality, permissions, and preconditions well. However, for a 7-parameter mutation tool it leaves most optional parameters unexplained, which is a real gap an agent would hit at call time.

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% for 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only touches 'summary' (required for promotion) and implies 'path'/'new_path' via the rename framing; task_id, evidence, impl_status, decision_status, and the distinction between path and new_path remain completely undefined.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Rename a note within its domain') plus a concrete side effect (links rewritten, anchors kept), and carves out the promotion case from working/. It does not name any sibling tool, so an agent must infer the boundary with patch_header/patch_section/create_note on its own.

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 key conditional: moving out of <domain>/working/ promotes the note into project knowledge, and it lists exclusions (index, status, log, decisions pages do not move). What is missing is guidance on when to prefer this over sibling operations like patch_header or create_note for restructuring.

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

Deploy Server