Skip to main content
Glama

forget

Destructive

Archive (soft-delete), un-archive, or permanently purge one or more memories. ARCHIVE (default): Only call after explicit unambiguous user confirmation — never on implication or casual mention. If archiving multiple memories, prefer the items array — the same confirmation protocol applies. Single archive: {id, reason}. Batch archive — use this when you have 2 or more confirmed memories to archive at once; more efficient than multiple single calls: {items:[{id,reason},...]} — returns {results:[{id,success,error}]}. RESTORE: Pass restore=true to un-archive an archived memory — obtain the ID from audit(mode=archived). Same explicit confirmation gate as archive. Single restore: {id, restore:true}. Batch restore: {items:[{id},...], restore:true}. PURGE (hard delete): Pass purge=true to permanently delete an already-archived memory and all its connections. Purge only operates on archived memories — archive the memory first if it is still live. A workspace key can only purge memories with no live inbound connections; connected memories return a structured warning listing live_inbound_connections rather than an error, and are not purged. Pass force=true (org_admin or platform key only) to override the connection guard and purge regardless. A workspace key passing force=true is rejected with error_class=forbidden. Single purge: {id, purge:true} or {id, purge:true, force:true}. Batch purge: {items:[{id},...], purge:true} — returns {results:[{id,purged,warning,error}]}. On failure, content[0].text is JSON: {"error_class": "not_found|retryable|forbidden|validation|internal", "message": "..."}. Switch on error_class: retry on retryable.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
forceNo
itemsNo
purgeNo
reasonNo
restoreNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite destructiveHint=true already signaling danger, the description adds crucial behavioral detail: archive is soft-delete, purge is hard delete, connected memories return structured warnings rather than errors, force can override the guard but is forbidden for workspace keys. It also discloses the JSON error format and retry guidance, which annotations alone would never convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but the complexity justifies it. Information is grouped by mode (ARCHIVE, RESTORE, PURGE), with examples inline and error handling at the end. A few patterns repeat, but each sentence adds operational value.

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?

For a destructive multi-mode tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers preconditions, confirmation gates, permission restrictions, edge cases like live inbound connections, response shapes, and error handling. An agent has everything needed to call any variant correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full parameter semantics. It explains the role of id, reason, items, restore, purge, and force, maps them to each mode, and gives concrete request shapes for single and batch calls. This far exceeds what the bare schema provides.

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 names the tool's exact operations: archive (soft-delete), un-archive, and permanently purge memories. It clearly distinguishes three modes with distinct intents and parameter shapes, so an agent knows precisely what resource and action are being invoked.

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 strong operational guidance: explicit confirmation is required for archive/restore, batch use is recommended for multiple items, restore IDs must come from audit(mode=archived), purge only works on archived memories, and force is restricted to org_admin or platform keys. It also explains when to switch between single and batch calls, and how to handle failures via error_class.

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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation—lifecycle (remember/revise/forget), graph edges (connect/disconnect/why_connected), retrieval (recall/search/recent/history/orient/significance)—and the descriptions carefully disambiguate overlaps. However, the read/analysis cluster (recent, history, orient.recent, significance) could still cause initial misselection before reading the detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are readable and consistently lowercase, but they do not follow a single convention: most are bare verbs (connect, remember, revise, search, visualise) while others are nouns (domains, history, recent, significance) and two are multiword phrases (suggest_connections, why_connected). This mix is still predictable enough to navigate, but less coherent than a uniform verb_noun surface.

Tool Count4/5

16 tools is slightly above the typical 3–15 band, but the scope of a knowledge-graph memory server justifies the breadth: CRUD, connections, domain admin, and multiple query/analysis tools are all represented. No tool feels redundant enough to cut, though the set is at the heavy end.

Completeness4/5

Core lifecycle is well covered: create/read/update/archive/purge, connection creation/removal, domain admin, and multiple query/analysis modes. The main gap is that bulk domain merge (merge_domains) is referenced in tool descriptions but not exposed as an MCP tool, so agents must direct users to an external admin interface for that operation.

Resources