totem-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

memory_update_tool

Update a persistent memory item by ID to revise its title, statement, details, tags, status, confidence, importance, evidence, or metadata, and optionally record why for audit.

Instructions

Update a memory item. Reason is optional but strongly recommended.

Args: id: The memory item ID reason: Why this update was made (strongly recommended for audit trail; defaults to 'maintenance') title: New title statement: New statement details: New details tags: New tags status: New status (active, potentially_stale, invalidated, resolved, superseded) confidence: New confidence (0-1) importance: New importance (0-1) evidence: New evidence list metadata: New metadata project: Optional project root path. Auto-detected from git root if omitted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`tags`	No
`actor`	No
`title`	No
`reason`	No
`status`	No
`details`	No
`project`	No
`session`	No
`evidence`	No
`metadata`	No
`statement`	No
`confidence`	No
`importance`	No
`request_id`	No
`operation_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.6.0Oct 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / actor

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Actor"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / operation_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Operation Id"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / request_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Request Id"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / session

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Session"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.1Sep 9, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / confidence

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Confidence"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / details

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Details"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / importance

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Importance"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does 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 usefully discloses that reason defaults to 'maintenance', enumerates valid status values, and notes project auto-detection from git root. However, it never states whether the update is a partial merge or full replace, whether it is reversible, or permission requirements – critical omissions 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose followed by a clean, scannable args list. Mostly efficient, though a few entries ('New tags', 'New evidence list') are pure restatement of the parameter name.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained. But for a 16-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the missing update semantics (partial vs full replacement) and four undocumented parameters leave meaningful gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does, annotating 12 of 16 parameters with meaning beyond their bare names and giving the status domain. It leaves actor, session, request_id, and operation_id entirely undocumented, and several entries (tags, metadata) are only restated.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update a memory item') and the args list makes clear which entity and fields are touched. It is distinguishable from create/delete/revalidate siblings, though it never explicitly names them to sharpen the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the field list and the note that 'reason' is strongly recommended for an audit trail, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to memory_revalidate_tool or memory_relate_tool. The agent must infer that this is the general-purpose field editor.

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