Skip to main content
Glama
sleepunit-agents

loom

by sleepunit-agents
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

update

Destructive

Modify an existing memory by reference or category and title, replacing content, changing metadata, or logging confirm/contradict observations for feedback confidence.

Instructions

Update an existing memory. Find by ref (returned from remember) or by category+title. Can replace content, update metadata, or both.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNoMemory reference (category/filename) from remember
titleNoTitle of the memory to update (used with category)
contentNoNew content (replaces existing body)
categoryNoCategory to search in (used with title)
metadataNoMetadata fields to add or update
observationNoFeedback memories only: record a confirming or contradicting observation. "confirm" raises confidence (+0.05, capped at 0.9), "contradict" lowers it (-0.1, floored at 0.3); either way the evidence count goes up. Ignored on non-feedback memories. Confidence decays toward neutral the longer it goes unconfirmed — see the feedback category description on remember.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.5.1
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • addedInput schema / properties / observation
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Feedback memories only: record a confirming or contradicting observation. \"confirm\" raises confidence (+0.05, capped at 0.9), \"contradict\" lowers it (-0.1, floored at 0.3); either way the evidence count goes up. Ignored on non-feedback memories. Confidence decays toward neutral the longer it goes unconfirmed — see the feedback category description on remember.",
+  "enum": [
+    "confirm",
+    "contradict"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that content replacement overwrites the existing body and that metadata/content are independently optional, but says nothing about failure when the target is not found or about partial-update behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the addressing/update modes follow immediately. Nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 6-parameter but entirely optional update tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers addressing and mutation scope adequately. It omits only edge-case behavior (not-found errors) and confirmation of what a successful update returns, which is minor given no output schema exists.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value by tying the parameters into an OR relation (ref vs category+title) and noting ref comes from remember — an inter-parameter relationship the schema only hints at individually.

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 ("Update an existing memory") and clarifies the two lookup paths (ref, or category+title) plus the three update modes (content, metadata, or both). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like remember or memory_merge, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied through the two addressing modes, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (remember to create, memory_merge to combine, memory_propose to stage changes). An agent must infer the boundary from the sibling list.

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