Skip to main content
Glama

ToolRouter

by io.github.Humanleap

Update brain page

brain_update
Idempotent

Edit an existing brain page's content or metadata. wing/room/hall can be patched to re-file a page. scope can be changed to move a page between your personal and team brain — useful when an auto-ingested page landed in the wrong place. Moving a page to team scope requires team admin role.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hallNoOptional. Change hall: fact / event / discovery / preference / advice.
roomNoOptional. Re-file under a different room.
tagsNoNew tags
wingNoOptional. Re-file under a different wing.
scopeNoOptional. Move the page between your personal and team brain. Moving TO team requires team admin role and a team billing context. Moving FROM team to personal is allowed if you own the page or are an admin.
titleNoNew title
contentNoNew content (replaces existing)
page_idYesBrain page ID (bp_...)
load_tierNoOptional. Change load tier. L1 promotes a page to always-loaded; L3 sends it to cold archive.
material_changeNoOptional. When true, creates a new version of the page — the old version is preserved with a timestamp and a "supersedes" link. Use for corrections or significant changes; skip for minor edits. Default false.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already communicate that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds useful permission context ('Moving a page to team scope requires team admin role') and explains the re-filing concept, but it does not go further into side effects like version creation behavior beyond what the parameter schema already states.

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?

Three sentences deliver the core purpose, the main capabilities, and a key access constraint without filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and each sentence serves a distinct informative purpose.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus the rich parameter schema adequately covers purpose, re-filing semantics, scope movement, and admin requirements. It falls just short of a 5 because there is no indication of what the tool returns after an update, which would help the agent know what to expect.

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. The description adds value by tying wing/room/hall together as a re-filing mechanism and explaining scope movement in terms of a real-world use case. It does not merely repeat parameter descriptions, though some points like the team admin requirement are already present in the 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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Edit an existing brain page's content or metadata.' It also explains the key operations (re-filing via wing/room/hall, moving scope) which clearly differentiates it from siblings like brain_add or brain_delete. No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives a clear context for updating pages and even provides a concrete scenario for scope changes ('when an auto-ingested page landed in the wrong place'). However, it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives such as brain_add for creation or brain_delete for removal, leaving some usage selection to inference.

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

All ToolRouter 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by clear resource prefixes (account_, brain_, connector_, credential_, file_, job_, key_), and most actions have distinct purposes. A few boundaries overlap—brain_admin's lint action duplicates brain_lint, and account_preferences/setup/switch could momentarily confuse—but the descriptions resolve most ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

The dominant pattern is resource_verb for actions (file_read, job_cancel, key_create) and resource_noun for state views (credits_balance, brain_settings, account_preferences), which is readable. However, exceptions like discover, use_tool, top_up_credits, and feedback_request_tool break the pattern, and the set is not consistently verb_noun.

Tool Count2/5

47 tools is well beyond the comfortable range; even though prefixes organize them, the agent faces a large selection surface with many narrowly scoped tools. A more consolidated set with action-based subcommands would be easier to navigate.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are covered end-to-end: account setup and billing, connector and credential management, file CRUD, job polling, key lifecycle, brain knowledge management, and catalogue discovery/execution. Gaps are minor—outfit/persona/product/scene are list-only, connectors lack an update operation, and there is no explicit single-page brain get—but agents can generally work around them.

Resources