Claude Memory MCP

memory_update_rule

Update an existing mandatory or forbidden rule by its ID, modifying title, content, or project association.

Instructions

Update an existing mandatory or forbidden rule by its id.

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": "memory_update_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	No
`content`	No
`project`	No
`rule_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'Update' without disclosing side effects, idempotency, error handling for missing rule, or any behavioral traits. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.

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?

One efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it could include more relevant details without becoming 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?

The description is minimal and does not cover key aspects like which fields are updatable, constraints, or behavior when rule_id is invalid. Given the sibling tools and complexity, more context is needed.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. It only explains that rule_id identifies the rule, but does not describe title, content, or project 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 action (Update), the resource (existing mandatory or forbidden rule), and the identifier (by its id). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_add_rule and memory_delete_rule.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the rule must exist or the type constraints (mandatory vs forbidden).

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