Skip to main content
Glama

TeamShared

by io.github.xhad

Memory Forget

memory_forget

Soft-delete a semantic/episodic memory by id (requires memory:delete).

memory_id is the memory_items UUID returned by memory_recall. Procedural deletes are not supported via this tool.

Agent seats (org tsk_ / agent_run) are refused — call request_gated_approval(gate="destructive") instead. Console humans (ts_session) still forget.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonYesAudit reason; required
memory_idYesmemory_items UUID from a previous recall
parent_idNoWork parent UUID when this forget belongs to a beat

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / parent_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Work parent UUID when this forget belongs to a beat"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses soft-delete semantics, the memory:delete permission requirement, the refusal of agent seats, the supported console-human path, and the unsupported procedural-delete case. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the memory_id provenance, the procedural exclusion, and the seat/approval routing. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids any filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers the essential behavioral facts: what is deleted, how to get the id, who is allowed, what permission is needed, and what alternative to route through. The output schema exists, so return-value details do not need to be in the description. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra context by stating that memory_id is the memory_items UUID returned by memory_recall and that reason is an audit requirement. It does not repeat schema details verbatim, and parent_id is adequately covered by the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Soft-delete'), names the target resource ('semantic/episodic memory by id'), and immediately distinguishes this tool from memory_forget_procedure and memory_forget_skill by stating 'Procedural deletes are not supported via this tool.' An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and what it does not do without opening any sibling schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance: agent seats are refused, and the tool directs the agent to call request_gated_approval(gate="destructive") instead. It also specifies that memory_id must come from a previous memory_recall, and it excludes procedural deletes. This is strong, actionable routing.

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

All TeamShared toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

With 104 tools across many domains (memory, work, projects, files, agents, context, strategic, ontology), the use of clear prefixes (memory_, work_, project_, file_, agent_run_, context_) makes most tools distinct. However, there are some potential confusions between memory_session_* vs memory_state_*, and memory_recall vs memory_think vs memory_assemble_context, though descriptions clarify their specific purposes. Aliases like memory_playbook_get for memory_procedure_get are explicit and reduce ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent pattern: prefix_domain_action (e.g., file_create, work_update, memory_recall, agent_run_start). All use snake_case, with verbs consistently placed after the domain prefix. Even less common tools like account_brief and attention_snapshot fit the overall naming scheme, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count3/5

At 104 tools, this is an exceptionally large surface area, far exceeding the 25+ threshold that feels heavy. However, the server covers an extensive domain (organizational memory, work management, project tracking, file sharing, agent orchestration, and strategic planning), which justifies a large count. Still, the sheer number may overwhelm agents, and some tools could be consolidated (e.g., many memory_session_* and memory_state_* variants).

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete for its stated purpose, covering CRUD operations for files, work items, projects, and memory, plus lifecycle management for agents, sessions, and strategic plans. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct memory_item_get by ID, no section removal in projects), but agents can work around these using existing tools like memory_recall or work_create with parent_id. Overall, the set minimizes dead ends.

Resources