Neo4j MCP Server

neo4j_update

Update properties on nodes identified by label and matching properties. Apply new property values to matched nodes.

Instructions

Update properties on nodes matching label + match_properties.

Args: label: Node label to match. match_properties: Properties to identify the node(s). update_properties: Properties to set/update on matched nodes.

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": {
      "label": "<label>",
      "match_properties": "<match_properties>",
      "update_properties": "<update_properties>"
    },
    "name": "neo4j_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`label`	Yes
`match_properties`	Yes
`update_properties`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral details. It states 'Update properties' but does not specify if it overwrites entire properties, handles partial updates, or what happens if multiple nodes match. Missing mutation semantics and side effects.

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 very concise, front-loading the core purpose and listing parameters in a structured Args format. Every sentence is valuable, no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and parameter roles, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, multiple node handling). With an output schema present, return value details are not required, but usage guidelines and behavioral transparency are incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description's Args section clearly explains each parameter's role (label to match, properties to identify nodes, properties to set). This adds meaning beyond the schema's simple titles and types.

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 tool updates properties on nodes matching a label and match_properties, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like neo4j_delete or neo4j_insert, which serve different purposes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for updating existing nodes, but lacks context on when to choose this over neo4j_search (to find nodes) or neo4j_query (for arbitrary updates).

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

Deploy Server