Append text to an allowed Markdown document, recording a commit message and optionally checking the expected Git commit for safe updates.
Append to an allowed target (e.g. shared/todo.md).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| commit_message | Yes | ||
| expected_git_commit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the vague 'allowed target' allowlist notion and no detail on commit behavior, the effect of expected_git_commit conflicts, or what mutation actually occurs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is a single short sentence, which is front-loaded, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy. The one sentence does not earn its place by covering enough ground for a 4-parameter mutation tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive, non-idempotent write tool with four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is far too thin. An agent has no basis for choosing this over write_document or for supplying commit_message/expected_git_commit correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden for four parameters. It only implies a path-like target via the 'shared/todo.md' example and says nothing about text, commit_message, or expected_git_commit semantics (e.g. optimistic-concurrency checking).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Append') and gives a concrete example target ('shared/todo.md'), so the operation is recognizable. However, the resource is described only as an 'allowed target', and it is not distinguished from the sibling write_document or propose_write, leaving ambiguity about when this is the right tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus write_document, propose_write, or get_document. The phrase 'allowed target' hints at an allowlist constraint but never explains what qualifies or what happens when the target is not allowed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.