CarryMem

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_rule

Update any aspect of an existing rule by providing its ID and optional new trigger, action, scope, type, or override flag. Returns the updated rule details.

Instructions

Update an existing rule's trigger, action, scope, or type. Use my_rules first to find the rule ID. Returns the updated rule details.

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": {
      "rule_id": "<rule_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scope`	No	New scope, optional
`action`	No	New action (what to do), optional
`rule_id`	Yes	The ID of the rule to update
`trigger`	No	New trigger (topic/scene), optional
`override`	No	New override flag, optional
`rule_type`	No	New rule type, optional

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Jun 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions updating and returning details but does not clarify whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset (partial update behavior), nor does it address permissions, side effects, or error conditions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no extraneous words. It is highly efficient.

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 no output schema, the description adequately states that it returns updated rule details. However, it lacks context on error handling, partial update semantics (field preservation vs. reset), and constraints like required permissions, which are not covered by annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the schema by naming some parameters (trigger, action, scope, type) but adds no additional meaning or usage context beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing rule', listing specific attributes (trigger, action, scope, or type) that can be modified. This distinguishes update_rule from sibling tools like add_rule (create) and delete_rule (delete).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description advises using my_rules first to find the rule ID, providing a clear prerequisite. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, the context of sibling tools implies alternatives for creation, deletion, and listing.

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