Memos MCP Server

update_memo

Update existing memos by changing content, visibility, pin status, or archive state.

Instructions

Update an existing memo.

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": {
      "instance": "<instance>",
      "memoName": "<memoName>"
    },
    "name": "update_memo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`state`	No	New state
`pinned`	No	Pin/unpin this memo
`content`	No	New content
`instance`	Yes	Instance name
`memoName`	Yes	Memo name (e.g., "memos/123")
`visibility`	No	New visibility

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool updates a memo, without disclosing whether updates are partial or full replacements, whether omitted fields are left unchanged, or whether permissions or side effects apply.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded for naming the action and object, though it could affordably include sibling differentiation or update behavior without becoming bloated.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and six parameters, the description is too thin. It does not explain update semantics, optional-field behavior, or how this tool interacts with the memo lifecycle compared to create_memo or delete_memo.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, including enums for state and visibility. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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?

Description states a clear verb and resource: 'Update an existing memo.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_memo, delete_memo, and get_memo by explicitly focusing on modifying an existing memo.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or that create_memo should be used for new memos. The 'existing' wording implies some context but does not explicitly compare against any sibling.

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

Deploy Server