Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unified Memory MCP

Unified Memory MCP

by piligrim-code
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

memory_update

Modify an existing memory record's content, tags, or scope by ID. Re-chunks content when changed to keep search accurate.

Instructions

Update a memory's content, tags, or scope by id (re-chunks on content change).

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>"
    },
    "name": "memory_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
tagsNo
scopeNo
contentNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.5.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful side effect: content changes trigger re-chunking. However, it omits whether unspecified fields are preserved, whether the update is destructive/irreversible, and permission requirements. The single side-effect note is real added value but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and operation, parenthetical reserved for the behaviorally important side effect. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a 4-param mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the target fields and one side effect but leaves partial-update semantics, reversibility, and error behavior unstated. Adequate minimum, but clear gaps remain.

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 0% and the description names all four fields (content, tags, scope, id), so it does compensate somewhat by telling the agent which fields are updatable. It still adds no format or semantics for tags (array of strings) or scope (allowed values), and does not explain that id is the only required field.

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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (a memory) plus the exact fields it can change (content, tags, scope) and the lookup key (id). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like memory_save or memory_get, but the operation 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 on when to use this versus memory_save (which may also modify) or memory_get/memory_delete. The 'by id' phrasing implies an existing record is required, but prerequisites and alternatives are left to inference.

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