Memwyre

update_memory

Update the content of an existing memory in Memwyre.
Requires the memory ID (e.g., 'mem_73'), which can be discovered using `search_memwyre` or `list_memories`.
The new content is completely re-chunked and re-indexed into the vector store.
Full Markdown documents are supported and encouraged — do not truncate.
Args:
    memory_id: The ID of the memory (must start with 'mem_').
    content: The new, full content (Markdown fully supported).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes
`memory_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses an important behavioral trait: content is completely re-chunked and re-indexed into the vector store. It also encourages full Markdown documents and warns not to truncate. It does not mention irreversibility or failure behavior, but the disclosed traits go beyond a basic update statement.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: purpose first, then prerequisite/discovery, then behavioral note, then an Args breakdown. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

The definition covers purpose, how to obtain the memory ID, what the update does to the vector store, and parameter constraints. With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. Minor gaps remain around invalid IDs or empty content, but for a two-parameter update tool the description is largely complete.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section adds critical semantics: memory_id must start with 'mem_' and serves as the target identifier; content should be the new full content with full Markdown support. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('existing memory in Memwyre'), making the core purpose unmistakable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like save_memory or upsert_memory, though 'existing memory' implies a distinction.

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?

Provides clear context on prerequisites: requires a memory ID discoverable via search_memwyre or list_memories. It implies this tool is for existing memories, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or name alternative tools such as save_memory or upsert_memory.

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

All Memwyre tools Inspect

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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map cleanly to distinct operations such as semantic search, date search, inbox approval/discard, and tag listing. The main ambiguity is between save_memory and upsert_memory, both of which can create memories with similar arguments; get_memory/get_document and delete_memory/discard_memory are also distinguishable mainly by ID prefix or inbox state.

Naming Consistency4/5

The names are consistently lowercase snake_case and verb-first, which makes the set fairly predictable. Minor deviations include search_by_date breaking the verb_noun pattern, get_inbox/get_all_tags acting as list operations while list_memories uses 'list', and upsert_memory being an unusual verb.

Tool Count5/5

At 13 tools, the surface is well-scoped for a memory/document vault: create, upsert, update, retrieve, list, semantic and date search, tags, and inbox workflow are all represented without excessive granularity or redundant filler.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the core memory lifecycle well, including save, upsert, update, get, search, list, delete, and inbox approval/discard. Minor gaps remain: update_memory only accepts mem_ IDs, so documents found via search have no document-specific update path, and workspace management is only handled through optional name strings.

Resources

Need Help?