totem-mcp

by emiliano-go

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

Python

Local

memory_update_tool

Update an existing memory item with new details, status, or metadata.

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New statement details: New details tags: New tags status: New status (active, potentially_stale, invalidated, resolved, superseded) confidence: New confidence (0-1) importance: New importance (0-1) evidence: New evidence list metadata: New metadata project: Optional project root path.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
`title`	No
`reason`	No
`status`	No
`details`	No
`project`	No
`evidence`	No
`metadata`	No
`statement`	No
`confidence`	No
`importance`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not clarify whether unspecified fields are left unchanged or reset to defaults, which is critical for a mutation tool. It does provide some details (reason default, project auto-detection) but omits update semantics.

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 description is efficient, starting with the purpose and then a clear bulleted list of parameters. No redundant prose; every line adds value. It is appropriately sized for 12 parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain partial-update semantics, error conditions, or what happens to omitted fields. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap that could lead to incorrect usage.

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?

The description lists every parameter with a brief meaning, including enums for status and ranges for confidence/importance. Since schema coverage is 0%, this is essential and largely compensates for missing schema descriptions, though some fields (e.g., evidence, metadata) are only vaguely defined.

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 action 'Update a memory item' and lists the specific fields that can be updated, distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_create_tool or memory_delete_tool. The verb-resource combination is unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage (update an existing memory item) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. The sibling names suggest obvious distinctions, but no explicit guidance is given.

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