ToolRouter

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.

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": {
      "page_id": "<page_id>"
    },
    "name": "brain_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hall`	No	Optional. Change hall: fact / event / discovery / preference / advice.
`room`	No	Optional. Re-file under a different room.
`tags`	No	New tags
`wing`	No	Optional. Re-file under a different wing.
`scope`	No	Optional. 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.
`title`	No	New title
`content`	No	New content (replaces existing)
`page_id`	Yes	Brain page ID (bp_...)
`load_tier`	No	Optional. Change load tier. L1 promotes a page to always-loaded; L3 sends it to cold archive.
`material_change`	No	Optional. 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.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) but say nothing about authorization. The description adds a real permission constraint — moving a page to team scope requires team admin role — which is valuable context beyond structured fields. It does not, however, clarify whether omitted fields are left untouched (patch semantics) or what the response looks like.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The core mutation is front-loaded, followed by the re-file and scope use cases and the permission caveat — a well-ordered, information-dense payload.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, key use cases, and the critical team-scope authorization rule. The remaining gap is patch-vs-replace semantics for unmentioned fields and any confirmation of what is returned; these are secondary but not fully covered elsewhere.

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 goes beyond the schema by explaining the intent behind the groups of parameters: wing/room/hall perform re-filing, and scope moves a page between personal and team brains. That interpretive layer earns the bump above baseline.

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 ('Edit') and resource ('an existing brain page'), then enumerates the two facets it covers: content/metadata and re-filing (wing/room/hall/scope). This clearly separates it from brain_add, brain_delete, and brain_query among the siblings.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use context, notably the scenario 'an auto-ingested page landed in the wrong place' for scope changes and the re-filing use case for wing/room/hall. It stops short of naming alternative tools (e.g., brain_delete for removal, brain_add for creation), so it does not reach the explicit alternatives bar.

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

All ToolRouter 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.