Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Nexus Memory

Nexus Memory

by Neboy72
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

update

Modify an existing memory in place while preserving its metadata. Provide the memory ID and optional new text, modifier, or validity date to correct stored facts.

Instructions

Update an existing memory in-place without losing metadata.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textNoNew content text (keep empty to keep existing)
memory_idYesID of the memory to update
modified_byNoWho made this modification (e.g. 'agent-a', 'agent-b')
effective_fromNoOptional ISO-8601 date/datetime: when the updated fact became valid (temporal validity, written to valid_from). Defaults to keeping the existing valid_from.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.22.25
    • changedInput schema / properties / modified_by / description
      Previous value: -"Who made this modification (e.g. 'Kiosha', 'Miosha', 'Nebo')"New value: +"Who made this modification (e.g. 'agent-a', 'agent-b')"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.16.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / effective_from
      Added value: +{
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Optional ISO-8601 date/datetime: when the updated fact became valid (temporal validity, written to valid_from). Defaults to keeping the existing valid_from.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv0.13.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose one non-obvious trait: the update is in-place and metadata is preserved. It says nothing about permissions, whether the edit creates a history entry (relevant given the fact_history sibling), or how unchanged fields behave.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the key preservation guarantee come first. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition covers the resource and the metadata-preservation property but omits behavioral consequences an agent would want (history/versioning effects, permission needs, partial-update rules beyond text). Adequate but clearly gapped.

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 schema already documents memory_id, text, modified_by, and effective_from including the "keep empty to keep existing" semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is the correct baseline of 3 when the schema does the work.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing memory") and adds scope detail ("in-place without losing metadata"), which separates it from generic mutation siblings. It never names a sibling like remember/forget/fact_history to disambiguate the write-vs-history split, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as forget (removal) or remember (creation). The agent must infer that this tool is for modifying a memory that already exists.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools