apex-memory

patch_header

Update a note's page header fields such as decision status, implementation status, evidence checked, and verification date while preserving omitted values and checking the supplied note version.

Instructions

Edit a note's page header: decision status, implementation status, evidence checked, verified_at (YYYY-MM-DD). if_version is the note version (read without a heading returns it). Fields left out keep their value; new evidence sets verified_at from its first date unless verified_at is given.

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>",
      "if_version": "<if_version>"
    },
    "name": "patch_header"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`task_id`	No
`evidence`	No
`if_version`	Yes
`impl_status`	No
`verified_at`	No
`decision_status`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses partial-update semantics (omitted fields retain their value), optimistic concurrency via if_version, and a non-obvious side effect (new evidence auto-derives verified_at unless overridden). It omits what happens on a version mismatch and any permission requirements, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and field list, then update semantics, then the if_version note. Some phrasing is telegraphic ("read without a heading returns it") and the field enumeration and the semantic clauses could be ordered more cleanly, but there is little waste.

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?

Given a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important mutation and concurrency behavior but leaves gaps: error handling on if_version conflict, the meaning of path and task_id, and valid values for the status fields are all unstated.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all seven parameters. It meaningfully explains if_version (including how to read it), verified_at's YYYY-MM-DD format, and the evidence/verified_at interaction, but leaves path and task_id entirely undefined, and gives no accepted values for the status fields.

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?

"Edit a note's page header" is a specific verb+resource, and the description enumerates the header fields (decision status, implementation status, evidence, verified_at). It implicitly separates itself from patch_section via "page header," but never names the sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

It gives useful operational guidance ("fields left out keep their value," how to obtain if_version via a heading-less read), which implies patch-style partial updates. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance against overlapping siblings such as patch_section or set_decision_status, which both touch similar state.

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

Deploy Server