Skip to main content
Glama

neuron

by io.github.conquext

Update Knowledge Base Entry

neuron_update_kb_entry
Idempotent

Update the content, title, folder, or source of an existing knowledge base entry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kbIdYesUnique identifier of the knowledge base
titleNoNew title for the entry
folderNoNew folder: 'general', 'skills', 'contexts', 'documents', or 'faqs'
sourceNoNew source type for the entry
contentNoNew content for the entry
entryIdYesUnique identifier of the entry to update
metadataNoNew metadata key-value pairs

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description indicates it modifies an existing entry, but doesn't detail partial update behavior or effects. Consistent with annotations.

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?

Single sentence with no unnecessary words. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is brief. It doesn't mention return values, error conditions, or that entry must exist. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description. The description lists some fields but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing knowledge base entry', and lists specific fields (content, title, folder, source). This distinctly differentiates it from create and delete siblings.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like create_kb_entry or delete_kb_entry. The context implies usage for modifying an existing entry, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisites.

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

All neuron 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are clearly separated by resource type, but there is meaningful overlap in messaging entry points (send_message, send_whatsapp, compose_message, bot_api_send) and contact ingestion/sync tools (import_contacts, populate_contacts, sync_whatsapp_contacts). The descriptions help disambiguate, but with 309 tools an agent will frequently need to read closely to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*. Minor deviations like sales_stats, lead_stats, wallet_balance, and whoami break the pattern slightly, but overall naming is highly predictable.

Tool Count1/5

309 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server, even a broad platform. This creates significant cognitive load and navigation overhead for agents, and far exceeds the well-scoped 3-15 tool range where coherence is strongest.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive across bots, contacts, campaigns, flows, knowledge bases, personas, marketplace, wallet, and products. Minor gaps exist — lead sources lack update/delete tools, and there is no single get_task or get_webhook alongside their list/update/delete counterparts — but these are workable gaps rather than dead ends.

Resources