Unified Memory MCP

Update Memory

update_memory

Modify an existing memory entry by ID. Optionally update content, tags, type, scope, source, metadata, namespace, sensitivity, confidence, or expiration.

Instructions

Patch an existing memory entry by 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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_memory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`tags`	No
`type`	No
`scope`	No
`source`	No
`content`	No
`metadata`	No
`namespace`	No
`sensitive`	No
`confidence`	No
`expires_at`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds only 'Patch' which implies mutation, but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permission requirements, or idempotency details. Minimal value beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is too brief given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, enums), resulting in under-specification.

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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It omits return values, parameter constraints, and behavioral context, making it insufficient for agent understanding.

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%. With 11 parameters, the description only mentions 'by id' which is trivial given the required id field. No additional meaning is provided for other parameters like tags, content, type, scope, etc.

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 explicitly states 'Patch an existing memory entry by id,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like remember (create), forget_memory (delete), list_memories, search_memory, and get_memory.

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 description implies the tool is for modifying an existing memory entry, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like remember or direct update. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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

Deploy Server