baton_memory_delete
선택한 기억을 삭제한다.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | ||
| memory_id | Yes |
baton
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- Added
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description only states the action (delete) without detailing side effects, reversibility, or any other behavioral traits. Minimal information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it omits necessary details about parameters and usage, making it slightly under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and only a one-line description, the tool is inadequately documented. It lacks information on return values, prerequisites, and parameter semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the two required parameters (api_key, memory_id). It fails to add any meaning beyond the schema.
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 'deletes the selected memory,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like baton_memory_get and baton_memory_put, though it does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to delete vs. get or search memories.
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
C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes due to detailed descriptions, but some potential overlaps exist (e.g., baton_revoke, baton_close_room, baton_leave). The complex domain is well-differentiated overall.
Naming Consistency3/5
The baton_ and spider_ prefixes provide consistency, but within baton_ there is a mix of verb-only, noun, and verb_noun patterns (e.g., baton_approve vs baton_account). Not fully predictable.
Tool Count2/5
With 45 tools, the server is very large and may overwhelm agents. While the domain is complex, many tools could potentially be consolidated, making the count excessive.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers account, room, handoff, verification, cost, memory, hub, task, and spider domains thoroughly. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit tool to list rooms), but core workflows are well-supported.