Forget memory
cortex_forgetDestructive
Dimentica (elimina) una memoria dato il suo id.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | id della memoria da eliminare |
Cortex
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive operation. The description adds the detail that it deletes by id, but does not disclose any side effects or additional behavioral traits beyond that. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that fully conveys the purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Dimentica' and specifies the operation and target. No wasted words.
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?
This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description, combined with the schema and annotations, is sufficient for an agent to know when and how to use it. It could add a bit more about impact (e.g., irreversibility), but the destructiveHint already covers that.
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 description coverage is 100%, as the single parameter 'id' is described as 'id della memoria da eliminare'. The description adds the same information in a concise form, but does not add extra context like id format or examples. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is correct.
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?
The description clearly states the tool deletes a memory by its id, matching the tool name 'Forget memory' and the sibling set. It is specific about the operation (delete) and the resource (memory), though it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like cortex_write, but the verb and resource are clear.
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 this is the tool to use when you need to delete a memory by id, as opposed to recalling or writing memories. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for similar operations, but given the sibling names, the usage context is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Search and recall both retrieve from memory and could be confused, but the descriptions distinguish search as returning results and recall as producing a narrative synthesis. cortex_write_status and cortex_conflicts also both touch conflicts, but one is tied to a specific queued write, so agents can mostly choose correctly.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools share a cortex_ prefix and verb-like names such as write, forget, and recall, but cortex_conflicts is a noun, cortex_write_status is a verb+noun compound, and fetch/search lack the prefix. The convention is readable but not consistently applied.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools cover the memory domain without bloat. Each tool maps to a distinct operation, and the count feels well-scoped for a persistent memory server.
Completeness5/5
The surface covers the core memory lifecycle: write, search/recall, fetch by id, delete, and conflict/status inspection. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.