Skip to main content
Glama
sunsatosolutions

Vulcanus

by sunsatosolutions
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Record a rule

append_rule

Add a durable rule to a project's Rules note. Rules are standing constraints the operator has confirmed — how to work on this project, what never to assume — not observations about one conversation.

Instructions

Add a durable rule to a project's Rules note. Rules are standing constraints the operator has confirmed — how to work on this project, what never to assume — not observations about one conversation. Use append_decision instead for a choice that was made, and update_capsule when the summary itself is now wrong. When it replaces an earlier rule, pass that rule's heading as supersedes; the old rule is marked superseded-by:: and kept as history. Writes to disk: it appends, so calling it twice records the rule twice. Errors when the project or its Rules note is missing, or when supersedes names no live rule (then nothing is written).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesShort name for the rule, e.g. "Naming"
ruleYesThe rule itself, in one or two sentences
projectYesProject name, id, or trigger word
supersedesNoHeading of the existing rule this one replaces, if any

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / supersedes
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Heading of the existing rule this one replaces, if any",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.4.4

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: append semantics ('calling it twice records the rule twice', consistent with idempotentHint=false), the non-destructive supersede path (old rule marked `superseded-by::` and retained), and precise failure conditions (missing project/Rules note, or supersedes naming no live rule, in which case nothing is written). These are the exact details an agent needs before a write.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then disambiguation, then the supersede mechanism, then failure modes. Each sentence carries distinct information a caller needs; there is no filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing side effects on disk, the supersede bookkeeping, and the error/no-write cases. For a 4-parameter write tool with annotations, this leaves no material gap an agent would need to call it 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 real meaning for `supersedes`: it takes the heading of an existing rule, triggers a `superseded-by::` marker on that rule, and errors if no live rule matches. That goes beyond the schema's one-line gloss, though `name`, `rule`, and `project` remain schema-only.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Add a durable rule to a project's Rules note') and immediately distinguishes this artifact type from adjacent ones ('standing constraints... not observations about one conversation'). An agent can tell it apart from append_decision, update_capsule, and recall without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('standing constraints the operator has confirmed'), explicit when-not-to-use, and names the alternatives with their selecting conditions: append_decision for 'a choice that was made', update_capsule 'when the summary itself is now wrong'. Nothing is left to inference.

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