Updates a single vector record's values, sparse vectors, or metadata in a specified index and namespace via the Vectors API.
Update one record's vector values or metadata via the Vectors API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| index | Yes | ||
| values | No | ||
| namespace | Yes | ||
| set_metadata | No | ||
| sparse_values | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the operation updates a record but does not disclose whether it is destructive, idempotent, requires index/namespace to exist, what happens if the id is missing, or whether metadata is merged versus replaced. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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?
A single efficient sentence with no wasted words and the verb and resource front-loaded. It is concise but under-informative rather than overly verbose.
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?
With no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and no description coverage of the six parameters or mutation semantics, the description is too thin for a state-mutating tool. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the missing behavioral and parameter detail leaves the definition incomplete.
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 descriptions of all six parameters are absent. The description briefly implies 'values' and 'metadata' are updatable but does not mention 'index', 'namespace', 'id', 'set_metadata', or 'sparse_values', nor does it clarify merge-vs-replace semantics for set_metadata. It therefore fails to compensate for the 0% coverage.
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?
States a specific verb (update) and resource (one record's vector values or metadata) and specifies the API surface (Vectors API). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from pinecone_update_documents, which presumably updates document-level records, leaving mild ambiguity.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite close siblings like pinecone_update_documents, pinecone_upsert_vectors, and pinecone_upsert_documents. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.