Ragionex Memory MCP

Official

by ragionex

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Remote

Update a memory record

ragionex_update_memory

Destructive

Replaces the content of a record in the selected Vault using its ID, complete new English content, and the latest expected revision; the prior version remains restorable for 30 days.

Instructions

Replace the content of a record in the selected Vault. Requires update permission. Send the record ID, the complete new English content and expected_revision, the revision from your latest read. The new content replaces the old, so keep every detail that still holds. Changed content is processed again, so the record can show processing status. The previous version remains restorable for 30 days.

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>",
      "expected_revision": "<expected_revision>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "ragionex_update_memory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Record ID in the selected Vault.
`content`	Yes	The complete replacement content in English. It replaces the current content, so include every detail that still holds.
`expected_revision`	Yes	The revision from your latest read of this record. Reread after a conflict; never guess.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv0.7.0Nov 1, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / content / description

Previous value: -"New content. Omit to keep existing content."New value: +"The complete replacement content in English. It replaces the current content, so include every detail that still holds."

removedInput schema / properties / content / maxLength
```
Removed value: -50000
```

addedInput schema / properties / expected_revision

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The revision from your latest read of this record. Reread after a conflict; never guess.",
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / id / description

Previous value: -"Memory ID to update."New value: +"Record ID in the selected Vault."

addedInput schema / properties / id / pattern
```
Added value: +"^[A-Za-z0-9_]{1,14}$"
```

removedInput schema / properties / project

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "New project. Omit to keep existing project.",
-  "maxLength": 50,
-  "minLength": 1,
-  "pattern": "^[a-z0-9-]{1,50}$",
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "expected_revision",
+  "content"
+]

First observedv0.5.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the previous version stays restorable for 30 days (materially softening the destructive hint), changed content is reprocessed so the record may show a processing status, and update permission is required. What it omits is the concrete failure mode on a revision mismatch.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then permissions, parameters, and consequences in a logical order; every sentence carries information. Some sentences duplicate schema text almost verbatim, which costs a little.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive single-record mutation with no output schema, the description covers permission requirements, concurrency control, replacement semantics, post-write reprocessing, and rollback window. Only the exact conflict/error behavior and the validation constraint on the record ID are left implicit.

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% and the schema descriptions already state that content is the complete replacement and that expected_revision must come from the latest read and never be guessed. The description restates those constraints rather than adding syntax, format, or edge-case meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Replace the content of a record in the selected Vault') and the full-replacement semantics, which distinguishes it from partial-write siblings like ragionex_save_memory. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions ('Requires update permission') and mandatory usage discipline ('expected_revision, the revision from your latest read', 'Reread after a conflict; never guess'). It never says when to prefer this over ragionex_save_memory or ragionex_restore_memory, so the alternative-selection guidance is missing.

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

Deploy Server