margins-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

append_to

Appends content to the end of a page, creating it if missing. If a pending proposal exists, new content stacks on top. Staged at proposed/ for review.

Instructions

Append content to the end of a page. If the page doesn't exist, it's created. If a pending proposal exists for the path, the append stacks on top of it. Result is staged at proposed/. If the user asks for final proposed content, read proposed/ after appending instead of inferring.

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>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "append_to"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Page path relative to vault root.
`content`	Yes	Content to append. A newline separator is added if needed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.15.3Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). Description adds behavioral details: auto-creation, proposal stacking, newline handling. No contradictions.

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?

Four concise sentences front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value: core function, creation behavior, proposal interaction, output location. No waste.

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?

No output schema, but description explains result staging at proposed/<path>. Handles all likely agent questions: what happens if page exists? if not? if proposal exists? How to get final content?

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 100% with descriptions. Description adds 'relative to vault root' for path and 'newline separator added if needed' for content, providing extra clarity beyond schema.

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 clearly states 'Append content to the end of a page' with specific verb and resource. It also covers edge cases like page creation and proposal stacking, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like propose_edit.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use: append to end, create if missing, stacks on pending proposals. Also advises reading proposed/<path> for final content instead of inferring. No alternatives named but context is sufficient.

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