cortex_forgetUse this when the user asks to delete a specific memory, given the id returned by search. Ask the user to confirm before calling it: the deletion is permanent and cannot be undone. Do not use it to fix a memory that is merely out of date: saving the corrected version with cortex_write is what keeps the history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The id of the memory to delete, exactly as returned by search |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"id della memoria da eliminare"New value: +"The id of the memory to delete, exactly as returned by search"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, but the description goes further by disclosing that deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, and by requiring user confirmation before calling. This adds important behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.
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?
Three sentences with no filler. The trigger is front-loaded, followed by the confirmation requirement and the explicit non-use case. Every sentence adds necessary information.
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?
For a single-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the action, input source, confirmation step, permanence, and the alternative for stale memories. With annotations and schema covering the rest, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes id as 'exactly as returned by search.' The description reinforces the same constraint but does not add new format or selection semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific action — deleting a specific memory using the id returned by search — and clearly distinguishes it from cortex_write for correcting outdated memories. This lets an agent know exactly what the tool does without opening the schema.
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?
It gives an explicit trigger ('when the user asks to delete a specific memory'), a required precondition (ask the user to confirm), and an explicit alternative for out-of-date memories (use cortex_write). This is strong guidance on when to invoke this tool versus a sibling.
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.