Update a memory's status to corrected, stale, wrong, scoped, or confirmed, and optionally replace its value with a reason.
Mark a memory as corrected, stale, wrong, scoped, or confirmed; optionally replace its value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| value | No | ||
| reason | No | ||
| status | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It states that the memory is marked and value may be replaced, but it does not reveal whether prior values are preserved, whether reasons are stored, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens to linked/related memories.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action, the allowed status values, and the optional value replacement efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the primary action and the optional value replacement, which is enough to make a basic call correctly. However, with no annotations and no param descriptions, the 'reason' field and the exact semantics of replacing the value remain under-specified, leaving room for agent uncertainty.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It adds meaning to 'status' by listing allowed values and to 'value' by calling it a replacement, but 'id' and 'reason' are left entirely unexplained, leaving a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific action verb ('mark') and a clear resource ('a memory'), and enumerates the possible status values: corrected, stale, wrong, scoped, or confirmed. This makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious and distinguishes it from nearby siblings like memory_update or memory_remove.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The status list implies scenarios where the tool should be used, such as flagging a memory as stale or wrong. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over memory_update or memory_remove, and no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.