Datacron

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Prepare sourced follow-up

prepare_follow_up

Read-only

Validate sourced action records and generate bounded append-journal plans by cross-checking IDs, hashes, and excerpts against live notes; returns plans without writing.

Instructions

Validate sourced actions, interactions, objectives and state revisions against live note IDs/hashes and exact source excerpts. Existing target history headings are required. Person targets require contextual identity confirmation; clarify homonyms first. Returns bounded append_journal plans, never writes. Validation is structural, not a truth verdict. Use stable record/revision IDs, then apply with existing writers and verify receipts. Refused: a source note that is the target itself; a source_excerpt under 20 non-blank characters; an event_date after tomorrow (UTC); a due_date before the event_date. Under retrieval redaction, secret-shaped text in a persisted field is refused with the field named; the rest of the source note is not examined. Schema constraints, repeated because some clients strip them: required: record_id, revision, kind, target_path, target_id, expected_hash, heading, source_path, source_hash, source_excerpt, summary; extra fields refused; at most 20 records per call, checked at runtime; record_id: pattern ^[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9_.-]{0,127}$; revision: pattern ^[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9_.-]{0,127}$; previous_revision: pattern ^[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9_.-]{0,127}$, or null, default null; kind: one of action, interaction, decision, objective, project_state; target_path: 1 to 4000 characters; target_id: pattern ^[0-9A-HJKMNP-TV-Z]{26}$; expected_hash: pattern ^[0-9a-f]{64}$; heading: 1 to 256 characters; source_path: 1 to 4000 characters; source_hash: pattern ^[0-9a-f]{64}$; source_excerpt: 1 to 4000 characters; summary: 1 to 4000 characters; event_date: ISO date, or null, default null; owner: at most 256 characters, or null, default null; due_date: ISO date, or null, default null; status: one of unknown, proposed, open, in_progress, waiting, completed, cancelled, default "unknown"; identity_confirmed: boolean, default false; identity_basis: at most 1000 characters, or null, default null

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`records`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`plans`	No
`status`	No
`committed`	No
`validation`	No
`next_action`	No
`writes_enabled`	No
`already_recorded`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.1.5Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description richly discloses behavior: validation is structural rather than a truth verdict, refusal cases are enumerated, retrieval-redaction behavior is explained, record limits are stated, and the tool explicitly never writes. All statements are consistent with the annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and validation boundaries, then moves through prerequisites, refusals, redaction behavior, and workflow. It is dense but not bloated. The only cost to conciseness is the deliberate repetition of schema constraints, which is justified for clients that strip the schema but still makes the description longer than strictly necessary.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a validation tool with one complex array parameter and an output schema, the description covers prerequisites, exact refusal conditions, redaction-sensitive behavior, runtime checks, identity-confirmation requirements, and follow-up application guidance. An agent has enough context to decide when to call it, construct valid inputs, and interpret its non-writing guarantee.

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?

The schema provides structural constraints, but the description adds essential runtime semantics: source_excerpt must exceed 20 non-blank characters, event_date cannot be after tomorrow, due_date must not precede event_date, identity_confirmed requires contextual confirmation, and records are capped at 20 per call. These meanings go well beyond the raw schema and help an agent construct valid parameters.

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 names a specific operation ('Validate sourced actions, interactions, objectives and state revisions against live note IDs/hashes and exact source excerpts') and clarifies what the tool produces: bounded append_journal plans, never writes. This distinguishes it from append-oriented siblings while making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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?

Clear usage context is given: existing target history headings are required, person targets need identity confirmation, and callers should use stable IDs, apply with existing writers, and verify receipts. It also distinguishes this from write tools by stating it 'never writes.' It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives, so there is no direct when-to-use-versus-tool comparison.

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