Waggle-mcp

update_node

Correct stored memory nodes by updating content, label, or tags while preserving node identity.

Instructions

Update an existing memory node's content, label, or tags. Use when a stored memory needs correction without deleting its identity. Returns the updated node.

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": {
      "node_id": "<node_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No	Replacement tag list for the node.
`label`	No	Replacement short label for the node.
`content`	No	Replacement natural-language content for the node.
`node_id`	Yes	ID of the node to update.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.8Apr 25, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return value ('Returns the updated node') and hints at identity preservation ('without deleting its identity'), but does not discuss permissions, side effects, or error cases (e.g., node not found). More detail would be beneficial.

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 three sentences: purpose, usage guidance, return value. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the action, when to use it, and what is returned. It lacks details on partial vs full replacement and error handling, but overall is sufficient for common use cases.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the fields (content, label, tags) but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. The description does not clarify behavior for partial updates.

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 memory node', and specifies the updatable fields: content, label, or tags. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create (store_node) or delete (delete_node).

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use when a stored memory needs correction without deleting its identity', providing clear when-to-use context. However, it does not mention alternative sibling tools for comparison, which would help an agent decide more precisely.

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