Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Memory MCP

Memory MCP

by mrunmayeekokitkar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

update_memory

Edit an existing memory by ID to change content, tags, importance, or TTL; re-embeds changed content so retrieval remains accurate.

Instructions

Edit an existing memory by id (re-embeds if the content changes).

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": {
      "memory_id": "<memory_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_memory"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNo
contentNo
ttl_daysNo
memory_idYes
importanceNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the re-embedding side effect when content changes, but it omits other important mutation behavior such as whether optional fields are replaced or left unchanged, how tags merging works, and what permissions or irreversibility apply.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted text, and the side-effect note is placed parenthetically without obscuring the main action.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. Although an output schema exists for return values, the input behavior remains largely unexplained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only clarifies memory_id and the effect of changing content. It does not explain tags, ttl_days, or importance semantics, leaving three of five parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Edit an existing memory by id.' This clearly distinguishes it from creation-oriented siblings like remember, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as recall or list_memories.

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 phrase 'existing memory by id' implies the tool is for modifying a memory whose id is already known, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools such as remember or forget.

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