margins-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

propose_edit

Replace exact text in a page and stage the edit as a proposal for review.

Instructions

Propose an edit to an existing page via exact string replacement. 'before' must appear exactly once in the current file (or in the pending proposal if one exists); add surrounding context if it doesn't. The edit is staged at proposed/.

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>",
      "before": "<before>",
      "after": "<after>"
    },
    "name": "propose_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	Page path relative to vault root.
`after`	Yes	Replacement text. Empty string deletes the match.
`before`	Yes	Exact text to replace. Must be unique in the file.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.15.3Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive. The description adds that the edit is staged (not applied directly) and explains uniqueness constraint, providing valuable context beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded purpose and mechanism, followed by essential usage hint. Highly efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior (staging, uniqueness, deletion). A minor gap is missing what the tool returns (e.g., success indication), but not critical.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds contextual guidance: explaining what to do if 'before' is not unique, and that empty 'after' deletes. This improves the agent's ability to use parameters correctly.

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 the tool performs 'exact string replacement' on an 'existing page'. This verb+resource+machine specification distinguishes it from sibling tools like append_to or propose_page.

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?

The description provides clear guidance on when the 'before' text must be unique and advises to add context if needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like propose_page or append_to, which would help the agent decide between siblings.

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