mem0-mcp

update_memory

Update stored memories by modifying text or metadata for an existing memory_id. Keep your memory records accurate and current.

Instructions

Update an existing memory's text and/or metadata. Confirm the memory_id with the user first if it wasn't just returned by another tool call.

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": {
      "memory_id": "<memory_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_memory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	No
`metadata`	No
`memory_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that updates are partial ('text and/or metadata') and implies existing resource, but omits details like merge/replace semantics for metadata, error handling for nonexistent IDs, or permission requirements. The confirmation guideline adds some transparency but isn't a behavioral trait.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence delivers an important usage instruction. No wasted words.

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 simple 3-parameter update tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter roles. The main gap is unclear metadata semantics (merge vs replace), which is significant for an update operation. Overall adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the text and metadata fields and their optionality via 'and/or', and mentions memory_id in the confirmation guidance. However, it doesn't explain the format of metadata or the precise effect of each parameter beyond the schema's type information.

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 uses the specific verb+resource combination ('Update an existing memory's text and/or metadata'), which makes the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_memory, delete_memory, or list_memories.

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 clearly indicates when to use it (for updating an existing memory) and includes a practical instruction to confirm memory_id with the user if not just obtained from another call. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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

Deploy Server