agent-memory-mcp

entity_update

Update an entity's fields, aliases, or mark it as deleted to manage memory records efficiently.

Instructions

Update entity fields, aliases, or set updates.deleted to soft-delete/restore.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "updates": "<updates>"
    },
    "name": "entity_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`project`	No
`updates`	Yes
`namespace`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description reveals the soft-delete/restore behavior via the deleted flag, adding context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose whether updates are merged or replaced, or mention side effects like validation or permissions.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the core update behavior but lacks information about return values, partial vs. full updates, and the meaning of project/namespace in context. These gaps could lead to ambiguity for an agent.

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?

The description partially explains the 'updates' parameter by mentioning fields, aliases, and deleted, but does not clarify the roles of 'id', 'project', or 'namespace'. Schema coverage is low, but the description adds meaning to the most important update fields.

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 tool updates entity fields, aliases, or the deleted flag for soft-delete/restore, distinguishing it from sibling tools like entity_add or entity_get.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as entity_add or entity_update (though entity_update is unique). It does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where this should be preferred.

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