Elimina un recuerdo del Hipocampo (memoria_vectorial) por su ID.
Esta operación es irreversible. Una vez eliminado, el recuerdo
no podrá recuperarse ni aparecerá en búsquedas futuras.
Args:
id: ID numérico del recuerdo a eliminar.
Returns:
Confirmación de eliminación.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
It explicitly warns that the operation is irreversible and that the memory cannot be recovered or appear in future searches. This is a clear disclosure of the destructive side effect, fulfilling the burden since no annotations exist.
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?
The description is concise, with a brief purpose statement, an irreversibility warning, and a structured Args/Returns section. No superfluous content is present.
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?
While it gives sufficient info for a delete operation, it doesn't mention possible errors (e.g., ID not found) or the exact format of confirmation. In the context of many sibling tools, it could have added a note on when deletion is appropriate, but the core is covered.
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?
The description explains the 'id' parameter as the numeric ID of the memory to delete, adding meaning beyond the schema's type and required status. It clarifies what the ID refers to, making the parameter semantics fully transparent.
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 tool deletes a memory from the Hippocampus by ID, using the verb 'Elimina'. It is distinct from sibling tools like search or update, and the name and description make the purpose unambiguous.
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 does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as update_hipocampo or search_hipocampo, nor does it provide conditional guidance on when to choose this tool. The irreversibility warning is useful but does not serve as a usage directive.
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.