Workfile

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Patch a work card

project_card_patch

Idempotent

Update card frontmatter fields with optimistic concurrency. Include expectedRevision from a prior read to prevent overwriting concurrent changes.

Instructions

Patch allowed card metadata using optimistic concurrency. Use expectedRevision whenever the card was read earlier. Declared axes go in changes.axes as { name: value }; an empty value clears one.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "changes": "<changes>"
    },
    "name": "project_card_patch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Card to patch.
`changes`	Yes	Frontmatter fields to overwrite, e.g. { priority: "high", tags: ["mcp"] }. Only the keys present are touched. Use project_card_transition for status and project_card_write for the body; declared axes go under an axes key.
`expectedRevision`	No	Revision string from an earlier read of this record. The write is refused if it no longer matches, so a concurrent edit is reported rather than overwritten. Omit to skip the check.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`record`	Yes	A canonical record with its body, revision and reference graph.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.5.4Aug 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / changes / description

Added value: +"Frontmatter fields to overwrite, e.g. { priority: \"high\", tags: [\"mcp\"] }. Only the keys present are touched. Use project_card_transition for status and project_card_write for the body; declared axes go under an axes key."

addedInput schema / properties / expectedRevision / description

Added value: +"Revision string from an earlier read of this record. The write is refused if it no longer matches, so a concurrent edit is reported rather than overwritten. Omit to skip the check."

addedInput schema / properties / id / description
```
Added value: +"Card to patch."
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "record": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "A canonical record with its body, revision and reference graph.",
+      "properties": {
+        "archived": {
+          "description": "Whether the record lives in the archive directory.",
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "body": {
+          "description": "Markdown body below the frontmatter.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "created": {
+          "description": "Creation date, YYYY-MM-DD.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "file": {
+          "description": "File name within the collection directory.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "id": {
+          "description": "Stable record ID.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "incoming": {
+          "description": "Backlinks: references other records make to this one.",
+          "items": {
+            "additionalProperties": true,
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        "incomingTotal": {
+          "description": "Total backlinks, which may exceed the returned page.",
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "issues": {
+          "description": "Validation findings doctor would report for this record.",
+          "items": {
+            "additionalProperties": true,
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        "kind": {
+          "description": "Record family: card, doc, change, release or memory.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "outgoing": {
+          "description": "References this record makes to others.",
+          "items": {
+            "additionalProperties": true,
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        "path": {
+          "description": "Repository-relative path to the Markdown file.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "recordType": {
+          "description": "Type within the family.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "revision": {
+          "description": "Content hash to pass back as expectedRevision on the next write.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "status": {
+          "description": "Lifecycle status.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "tags": {
+          "description": "Free-form tags.",
+          "items": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        "title": {
+          "description": "Human-readable title.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "updated": {
+          "description": "Date of the last write, YYYY-MM-DD.",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "record"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavior not in annotations: optimistic concurrency semantics — that expectedRevision causes refusal on stale writes and that an empty axes value clears an axis. The 'only the keys present are touched' partial-update behavior is also disclosed.

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?

The description is two dense, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. Every clause conveys load-bearing information: the operation, the concurrency model, the expectedRevision condition, and the axes clearing semantics. The schema descriptions are also concise and informative. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has 3 params (100% schema coverage), nested objects, an output schema, and clear annotations. The description, combined with the rich schema and annotations, fully covers the patch mechanics, concurrency behavior, and axis handling. It's complete for the tool's complexity. The only minor gap is it doesn't explicitly preview the output, but the output schema exists so that burden is transferred.

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 schema already documents all three parameters well. The description adds value beyond the schema: it clarifies that an empty axes value clears an axis, names the exact shape '{ name: value }' for changes.axes, and explains the concurrency-check behavior of expectedRevision beyond its schema text. This exceeds the schema-only baseline of 3.

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 says 'Patch allowed card metadata using optimistic concurrency' — a specific verb (patch) plus resource (card metadata) plus a defining mechanism (optimistic concurrency). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings: the schema notes status belongs to project_card_transition and body to project_card_write, and the description explains axes placement, disambiguating from project_card_write and others.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use expectedRevision whenever the card was read earlier' and 'Declared axes go in changes.axes'. The schema additionally directs status changes to project_card_transition and body changes to project_card_write, naming concrete alternatives. This is strong when-to-use versus alternative-tool guidance.

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