NEXUS AGI

Update entity

update_entity

DestructiveIdempotent

Correct an existing entity's type, canonical name or aliases.

Each change increments the entity's version. Changing the name or
aliases re-indexes the entity and may queue merge proposals with
similarly named entities. To combine two entities that are the same,
use decide_merge_proposal rather than renaming one. At least one field
must be given.

Args:
    entity_id: UUID of the entity.
    entity_type: New type from the closed ontology. Rejected if any of
        the entity's current relations would become invalid for it.
    name: New canonical name. The old name is not kept automatically;
        include it in aliases to keep it searchable.
    aliases: The COMPLETE alias list (replaces the current one).

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": {
      "entity_id": "<entity_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_entity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`aliases`	No
`entity_id`	Yes
`entity_type`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: version increments per change, name/alias edits trigger re-indexing and may queue merge proposals, the old name is not retained automatically, and aliases are a complete replacement of the current list. This tells the agent exactly what is mutated and what side effects follow, consistent with destructiveHint=true.

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-loads the core action, then behavioral consequences, then per-argument semantics — a logical progression with no filler. Slightly longer than strictly necessary, but virtually every sentence adds operational value.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the mutation scope, side effects, validation failure mode, alternative tool, and all four argument semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: entity_id is a UUID, entity_type comes from a closed ontology with a relation-validity rejection rule, name drops the old value unless re-added, and aliases is a full replacement rather than an append. Each of the four parameters gains meaning not 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?

States a specific verb (correct/update) plus the exact mutable fields (type, canonical name, aliases) of an existing entity. It is clearly distinguishable from create_entity and from decide_merge_proposal, which it names explicitly.

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 an explicit when-not: 'To combine two entities that are the same, use decide_merge_proposal rather than renaming one.' It also states the prerequisite that at least one field must be supplied and that entity_type is rejected when existing relations would become invalid.

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

All NEXUS AGI 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?