BlackOps Center

Update Brain

update_brain

Add a new note to a brain — no target_id or file path knowledge required; the server resolves storage from the brain record (BlackOps directly for DB-backed brains, a GitHub commit for vault-backed ones). Use this whenever the user says "update the brain", "add this to the brain", or "log this in the brain". Call list_brains first for the brain_id if you do not have it. To create a new brain from scratch, call create_brain. A DB-backed brain recompiles immediately; a vault-backed one picks the note up on its next compile. Use post_notes_write (with brain_id) only when you need lower-level control over the filename or relative path.

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": {
      "brain_id": "<brain_id>",
      "markdown_content": "<markdown_content>"
    },
    "name": "update_brain"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`brain_id`	Yes	Brain UUID (from list_brains)
`allow_secrets`	No
`note_filename`	No	Override the filename (without .md extension). Defaults to slugified section_title or date-based name.
`section_title`	No	Title for this note — used as the filename slug (e.g. "Threads Integration")
`commit_message`	No	Git commit message. Defaults to "Add brain note: <filename>"
`markdown_content`	Yes	Markdown content for the new note to add to the brain

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that storage is resolved server-side (BlackOps DB vs GitHub commit for vault-backed brains) and the timing consequences (DB-backed recompiles immediately, vault-backed picks up on next compile). It omits anything about allow_secrets behavior or permission requirements, which leaves a gap for a write operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and the storage-resolution note, then trigger phrases, prerequisites, and alternatives in a logical order. It is somewhat dense with parenthetical detail but nearly every sentence carries routing or behavioral information.

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?

For a six-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential whats and whens: where notes land, when they become visible, and which siblings to use instead. The remaining gaps are the return value and the effect of allow_secrets, which are moderate rather than critical.

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 83%, so the schema already documents brain_id, note_filename, section_title, commit_message, and markdown_content. The description reinforces that brain_id comes from list_brains and that filename/path are not required, but it adds nothing about allow_secrets, which is undocumented in both places. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a new note to a brain') and immediately scopes it: no target_id or file path needed because the server resolves storage. It also names the sibling alternatives (create_brain, post_notes_write) so the agent can tell it apart from neighbors without opening schemas.

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 user trigger phrases ('update the brain', 'add this to the brain', 'log this in the brain'), a prerequisite ('Call list_brains first for the brain_id'), and two named alternatives with the exact condition that selects each (create_brain for new brains, post_notes_write for lower-level path control).

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

All BlackOps Center tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?