Skip to main content
Glama
kinmeic

Memos MCP Server

by kinmeic
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_attachment

Modify an existing attachment's filename, MIME type, memo association, or external URL by providing its attachment ID and a field mask to specify what to update.

Instructions

Update an existing attachment

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
memoNoNew related memo resource name
typeNoNew MIME type
filenameNoNew filename
update_maskYesComma-separated list of fields to update (e.g., "filename,type,externalLink")
attachment_idYesThe attachment ID to update
external_linkNoNew external URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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. 'Update' signals mutation, but the description does not disclose partial-update semantics, field validation behavior, or side effects. The required update_mask is a key behavior that is only discoverable in the schema.

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 sentence with zero fluff, earning the high end for conciseness. It is somewhat under-structured, lacking context that would help an agent, but it is not verbose.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It provides no information about update behavior, required fields beyond the schema, or consequences of the update, leaving the agent to infer everything from parameter names.

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. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter relationships, defaults, or field constraints, establishing the baseline 3.

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?

The description 'Update an existing attachment' uses a clear verb-resource pair and distinguishes the tool from create/get/list/delete siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with set_memo_attachments, but the intent 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 Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'existing' implies it is not for creation, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or mention of set_memo_attachments as a possible alternative.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools