Wicked MCP

memory_update

Update a memory WITHOUT overwriting it: creates a new version and closes the old one (valid_until / superseded_by), so history is kept. Omitted fields carry over. Returns previous and current. Only the current version can be updated (409 otherwise, naming the current id). Call memory_prepare with operation "update" and the same arguments first.

Args:
    wallet: Your agent's 0x wallet address.
    memory_id: UUID of the CURRENT version to supersede.
    timestamp: From memory_prepare.
    nonce: From memory_prepare (single use).
    signature: Your wallet's signature over memory_prepare's message_to_sign.
    content: New text (re-embedded). Provide at least one of content/tags/metadata/source.
    tags: Replacement tags.
    metadata: Replacement metadata object.
    source: New source label.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tags`	No
`nonce`	Yes
`source`	No
`wallet`	Yes
`content`	No
`metadata`	No
`memory_id`	Yes
`signature`	Yes
`timestamp`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: versioning/history retention, carry-over of omitted fields, single-use nonce, signature requirement, content re-embedding, and the 409 failure mode that names the current id. This is exactly the behavioral context the annotations would otherwise provide.

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?

The behavioral summary is front-loaded ahead of the args list, and every sentence carries information. It is slightly verbose in restating parameter purposes, but the structure (behavior first, args after) is well organized with little waste.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a signed, 9-parameter mutation tool with a 409 failure mode, the description covers the full call sequence, signing prerequisites, partial-update semantics, and even the return shape ('previous' and 'current'), which the output schema also supports. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by documenting all 9 args, including the crucial distinction that memory_id must be the CURRENT version and that timestamp/nonce/signature come from memory_prepare. It also states the 'at least one of content/tags/metadata/source' rule. Minor gap: 'replacement' semantics for tags/metadata could note merge vs overwrite, but coverage is strong.

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 precise verb and resource and immediately clarifies the semantics that distinguish it: 'creates a new version and closes the old one.' An agent can tell this apart from memory_store and memory_delete from the description alone.

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?

Explicitly mandates the prerequisite workflow ('Call memory_prepare with operation "update" and the same arguments first') and states the key constraint ('Only the current version can be updated (409 otherwise, naming the current id)'). This is when-to-use plus when-it-will-fail guidance.

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

All Wicked MCP 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.