forget
Delete a memory by its id (from a previous recall/list result).
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Delete a memory by its id (from a previous recall/list result).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies destruction, but does not disclose permanence, permissions, or side effects. For a simple deletion tool, this is minimally adequate but could be improved.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence of 12 words with no redundancy. Every word earns its place, delivering the essential information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does and where the id comes from. Minor improvement: note that deletion is permanent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has one parameter 'id' with 0% description coverage. The description adds context that the id comes from a previous recall/list result, which provides meaningful context beyond the schema. However, it does not specify format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a memory') with specificity ('by its id'). It distinguishes from siblings: list_recent (list), recall (recall), remember (create).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: 'from a previous recall/list result' suggests the id originates from those tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: remember stores, recall searches semantically, list_recent lists by recency, and forget deletes by ID. There is no overlap in functionality, so an agent can easily select the right tool.
Most tool names are concise imperative verbs (forget, recall, remember), while list_recent follows a verb_noun pattern. This minor inconsistency is still readable and predictable, as all names use lowercase with no mixed styles.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for a memory system. Each tool covers a core operation (create, search, list, delete) without unnecessary bloat, making the number appropriate.
The memory lifecycle is fully covered: remember (create), recall/list_recent (read/search), and forget (delete). There is no missing operation that would hinder an agent from managing memories effectively.