Skip to main content
Glama

OpenAkashic

by io.github.szara7678

Append OpenAkashic Note Section

append_note_section

Append a new H2 section to an existing OpenAkashic markdown note.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesFull path of the existing note. Example: 'personal_vault/projects/my-project/note.md'
contentYesMarkdown content to append under the heading.
headingYesSection heading text (without ##). Example: 'Results' → appended as '## Results'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It states the core action but does not mention how the tool handles missing notes, whether it modifies the file in place, or any potential side effects beyond appending.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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 relatively simple append operation, the description is adequate but omits contextual details such as what happens if the note does not exist, any formatting requirements, or the structure of the return value. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description alone leaves some gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% for all three parameters, and each property includes a clear description and examples. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('new H2 section to an existing OpenAkashic markdown note'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_note or upsert_note by explicitly targeting appending to an existing note.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as upsert_note. The description is purely declarative and does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contexts where another tool would be more appropriate.

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

All OpenAkashic toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear, distinct purposes, but there are overlapping areas such as search_akashic vs search_notes vs search_and_read_top, and confirm_note/dispute_note/review_note which serve related but different review functions. Descriptions are detailed enough to reduce ambiguity, though some boundary cases require careful reading.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_notes, create_folder, delete_note, move_note). Even debug tools and compound names like search_and_read_top maintain the convention. The only exception is whoami, which is a common standalone verb and does not break the overall pattern.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the server has a large surface area that could overwhelm agents. The tool count exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' in the rubric, even though the broad domain (notes, folders, search, reviews, publication workflow, debugging) partially justifies the number. The set feels heavy and could benefit from consolidation.

Completeness5/5

The toolset provides thorough coverage of the knowledge management lifecycle: note CRUD (upsert/read/delete/move), folder management, multiple search modes, review/confirmation/dispute mechanisms, publication workflow, stale note handling, image upload, and debugging utilities. There are no obvious dead ends; every major operation needed to manage and publish notes is represented.

Resources