Engram

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_identity

Propose a change to an identity field such as profile, preferences, or trust boundaries for local review. The proposal stays pending until the Owner approves it, so approved identity remains in use.

Instructions

提议修改一个身份字段，等待本地审核。 / Propose an identity change for local review.

用途：需要修改 profile、preferences、trust_boundaries、work_style 或 quality_standards 时调用。
Purpose: Call when changing profile, preferences, trust_boundaries, work_style, or quality_standards.

所有模式只创建 pending 身份提案；Owner 用 engram review 查看旧值/新值并批准或拒绝。
All modes create pending identity proposals only; the Owner compares old/new values in engram review.
批准前自动上下文继续使用已批准身份。trust_boundaries 的变更也需要审核。
Automatic context uses approved identity until approval, including trust_boundaries changes.

Args:
    field: 字段名：profile、preferences、trust_boundaries、work_style 或 quality_standards。 / Field name: profile, preferences, trust_boundaries, work_style, or quality_standards.
    updates_json: 包含要更新字段的 JSON 字符串。 / JSON string containing the fields to update.
    source_tool: 调用来源工具（如 'claude_code', 'codex', 'cursor'），用于字段级溯源。 / Source tool for field-level provenance tracking.

Field-specific keys / 字段专用键:
    profile: role, language, technical_level, description / role、language、technical_level、description。
    preferences: work_patterns (dict), communication (str), tool_preferences (dict), playbook_auto_extract (bool, default true) / work_patterns（字典）、communication（字符串）、tool_preferences（字典）、playbook_auto_extract（布尔，默认 true）。
    trust_boundaries: default_sharing, tool_access, private_fields, restricted_fields / default_sharing、tool_access、private_fields、restricted_fields。
    work_style: preferences (dict), communication (str) / preferences（字典）、communication（字符串）。
    quality_standards: acceptance_threshold (1-5), rules (list) / acceptance_threshold（1-5）、rules（列表）。

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": {
      "field": "<field>",
      "updates_json": "<updates_json>"
    },
    "name": "update_identity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`field`	Yes
`source_tool`	No
`updates_json`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv3.29.4May 27, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / source_tool
```
Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Source Tool",
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
Addedv3.29.1May 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses the critical non-obvious behavior: no change is applied directly—everything becomes a pending proposal that the Owner approves or rejects. It also explains that approved identity stays in effect until approval, and that trust_boundaries changes also require review.

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?

The key behavior (pending proposal, Owner review) is front-loaded, and the structured Args/Field-specific-keys layout scans well. The bilingual duplication roughly doubles the length without adding information, which is the only waste.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, it covers what matters: mutation semantics, approval workflow, valid field values, and the per-field JSON payload keys. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 it does: the valid values of 'field' are enumerated, 'source_tool' is explained as field-level provenance with examples, and 'updates_json' is documented per-field with allowed keys and types/defaults (e.g. acceptance_threshold 1-5, playbook_auto_extract default true). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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?

The first sentence gives a specific verb ('propose') plus resource ('identity change') and the immediate effect ('for local review'). The field enumeration further pins scope, and the distinction from read-only siblings like get_identity_card is implicit but obvious because this tool is explicitly a proposal workflow.

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?

It states exactly when to call ('Call when changing profile, preferences, trust_boundaries, work_style, or quality_standards') and clarifies that all modes produce only pending proposals requiring Owner approval in engram review. It does not name alternatives (e.g. get_identity_card to inspect current values), so it falls short of the 5 bar for explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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