Skip to main content
Glama
anshulyadav1976

synapse

by anshulyadav1976
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

propose_note

Idempotent

Stage a new durable note or append to an approved note for human review, writing a local proposal file without committing searchable memory.

Instructions

Stage one new durable note or append to an approved note for human review. Writes a local proposal file, never commits searchable memory or changes raw/wiki files; no model or network call. For an existing note, call read_note first, retain its title, and pass its revision; omit parent_revision only for a new note. Returns a JSON object in text with proposal_id, status, note_id, title, base_revision, proposed_revision, unified diff, and next CLI review/approval commands. The same idempotency_key and arguments return the same proposal; reusing a key with different arguments, stale revisions, or invalid fields returns a tool error. A human must approve outside MCP; do not invoke approval yourself. Use search/read tools for retrieval, not this tool. Never propose credentials, tokens, browser/session/workspace state, transient output, or routine turns. Supply one lasting fact or decision with provenance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesOne durable fact or decision as Markdown, possibly multiline. Appended, not a replacement of existing text; no NUL characters or operational secrets.
titleYesSingle-line heading, trimmed; for an append it must exactly match the heading returned by read_note.
note_idYesStable note slug, e.g. release-choice; use the existing ID to append or a new ID to create. No notes/ prefix or .md suffix.
provenanceYesSingle-line, human-readable source or reason, e.g. Explicit user decision. Stored with the dated entry; no NUL characters.
idempotency_keyYesUnique stable key for this exact request, e.g. release-choice:1. Reuse for retries only; change for a different entry or revised parent.
parent_revisionNoSHA-256 revision copied from read_note, required for appending. Omit for a new note; a stale revision fails instead of overwriting newer content.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed15 schema fields changedv0.4.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / body / description
      Previous value: -"One durable fact or decision"New value: +"One durable fact or decision as Markdown, possibly multiline. Appended, not a replacement of existing text; no NUL characters or operational secrets."
    • addedInput schema / properties / body / maxLength
      Added value: +12000
    • addedInput schema / properties / body / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • changedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / description
      Previous value: -"Stable key for this exact proposal"New value: +"Unique stable key for this exact request, e.g. release-choice:1. Reuse for retries only; change for a different entry or revised parent."
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / pattern
      Added value: +"^[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9._:-]{0,127}$"
    • changedInput schema / properties / note_id / description
      Previous value: -"Stable lowercase slug"New value: +"Stable note slug, e.g. release-choice; use the existing ID to append or a new ID to create. No notes/ prefix or .md suffix."
    • addedInput schema / properties / note_id / pattern
      Added value: +"^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9-]{0,60}$"
    • changedInput schema / properties / parent_revision / description
      Previous value: -"Revision from read_note; omit only for a new note"New value: +"SHA-256 revision copied from read_note, required for appending. Omit for a new note; a stale revision fails instead of overwriting newer content."
    • addedInput schema / properties / parent_revision / pattern
      Added value: +"^[a-f0-9]{64}$"
    • changedInput schema / properties / provenance / description
      Previous value: -"Human-readable source or reason"New value: +"Single-line, human-readable source or reason, e.g. Explicit user decision. Stored with the dated entry; no NUL characters."
    • addedInput schema / properties / provenance / maxLength
      Added value: +500
    • addedInput schema / properties / provenance / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • addedInput schema / properties / title / description
      Added value: +"Single-line heading, trimmed; for an append it must exactly match the heading returned by read_note."
    • addedInput schema / properties / title / maxLength
      Added value: +200
    • addedInput schema / properties / title / minLength
      Added value: +1
  2. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), it discloses that it writes only a local proposal file, never commits searchable memory or mutates raw/wiki files, makes no model or network call, and requires out-of-band human approval that the agent must not trigger. It also explains idempotency failure behavior (same key + args returns same proposal; different args or stale revisions error).

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 dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then side-effect/return disclosure, then idempotency and safety constraints. Almost every sentence carries distinct information, though the return-field enumeration and the multiple negative constraints make it 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned JSON fields (proposal_id, status, note_id, title, base_revision, proposed_revision, diff, next commands). Combined with the write-safety and approval constraints, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter workflow semantics not in the schema: read_note must precede an append, the title must be retained from that read, the revision must be passed, and parent_revision is omitted only for a brand-new note. That sequencing guidance is genuinely useful beyond field-level definitions.

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 uses a precise verb+resource ('Stage one new durable note or append to an approved note') and states the exact artifact produced (a local proposal file for human review). It explicitly differentiates itself from retrieval siblings by saying 'Use search/read tools for retrieval, not this tool.'

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit when-to-use (staging one lasting fact or decision), prerequisites (call read_note first for appends, retain its title, pass its revision), and when-not-to-use exclusions (never propose credentials, tokens, session state, transient output, routine turns). The alternative routing to search/read tools is named outright.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools