Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SecondBrain MCP

SecondBrain MCP

by vladilenm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

apply_note_update

Apply a confirmed update to a note by verifying its hash, preventing accidental overwrites. Requires user confirmation and the hash of the reviewed version.

Instructions

Apply a confirmed note update. Requires confirmed=true and expected_hash to prevent accidental overwrites.

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>",
      "expected_hash": "<expected_hash>",
      "new_content": "<new_content>",
      "confirmed": "<confirmed>"
    },
    "name": "apply_note_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesRelative .md path inside the vault
backupNoCreate a backup under 00_Meta/AI-System/backups (default true)
confirmedYesMust be true after user confirmation
new_contentYesNew markdown body without YAML frontmatter
expected_hashYesHash of the version the user reviewed

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry disclosure weight. It mentions safety features (hash verification, backup by default) but lacks details on error handling, return values, or behavior on failure. Adequate but incomplete.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part contributes meaning (verb, resource, key precondition).

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers core purpose and key constraint but omits return format, error scenarios, and detailed backup behavior. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds only marginal value by highlighting confirmed and expected_hash. Baseline 3 is appropriate; no extra parameter insights 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 the verb 'Apply' and resource 'confirmed note update', distinguishing it as a write operation that requires preconditions. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 mentions required parameters (confirmed=true, expected_hash) to prevent accidental overwrites, providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like propose_note_update or state when not to use.

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