Skip to main content
Glama

MMW

by tech.mmwhub.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Delete memory

forget
Destructive

Soft-delete a memory by memory_id or cascade-delete all memories from a source_id, cleaning up graph edges.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
memory_idNoSpecific unique memory ID to soft-delete
source_idNoSource ID to cascade-delete all associated memories from
workspaceNoWorkspace containing the target memorydefault

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
atYesISO 8601 deletion timestamp
idNoForgotten memory ID if deleted by ID
forgottenNoTrue if the memory was found and deleted
source_idNoForgotten source ID if cascade deleted by source
tenant_idNoTenant identifier
workspaceYesWorkspace name
api_versionNoAPI version of the memory server
forgotten_countNoNumber of cascade-deleted memories

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / api_version / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / api_version / default
      Added value: +null
    • removedOutput schema / properties / api_version / type
      Removed value: -"string"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / tenant_id / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / tenant_id / default
      Added value: +null
    • removedOutput schema / properties / tenant_id / type
      Removed value: -"string"
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "api_version",
-  "tenant_id",
-  "workspace",
-  "at"
-]New value: +[
+  "workspace",
+  "at"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context beyond that: deletion is 'soft', the source_id path cascades to ALL associated memories, and it 'cleans up graph edges' -- a side effect not visible in annotations.

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?

A single tight sentence with the destructive action and its side effect front-loaded. Zero filler and every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description covers both deletion modes and the edge-cleanup side effect. Minor gap: no mention of whether a soft-delete is recoverable/undoable.

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%, so the schema already documents memory_id, source_id, and workspace. The description reinforces the memory_id/source_id duality but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States specific verbs (soft-delete, cascade-delete) on a specific resource (memory) and names both operating modes keyed to memory_id vs source_id. An agent immediately knows this is destructive removal, distinct from remember/search/validate_memory.

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 two modes ('by memory_id' vs 'from a source_id') imply when each parameter applies, giving some routing guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings like validate_memory, nor any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage largely inferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All MMW toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources