memory-manager-mcp

Delete project memory

delete_project_memory

Permanently delete all stored memories for the current project. Set confirm=true to execute this irreversible cleanup.

Instructions

PERMANENTLY delete all stored memory for the current project. Requires confirm=true.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "delete_project_memory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	Yes	Must be true to actually delete.
`workspacePath`	No	Workspace directory of the project. Defaults to the server working directory.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Aug 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns of permanence ('PERMANENTLY delete'), scope ('all stored memory'), and the safety requirement ('Requires confirm=true'), which are important for a destructive operation. It does not mention potential side effects on workspacePath or specific auth needs, but the key risks are covered.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the destructive nature ('PERMANENTLY delete') and includes the critical requirement. There is no wasted wording.

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?

For a destructive delete tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: action, scope, permanence, and confirmation. It lacks alternatives to differentiate from clear_memory, and does not mention return value, but the core context is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add product-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the confirm requirement. The workspacePath parameter's purpose and default are clear from the schema itself.

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 clearly specifies the action ('PERMANENTLY delete'), the resource ('all stored memory for the current project'), and the required confirmation parameter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_memory or save_memory, though it does not explicitly differentiate from clear_memory.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clear_memory or other deletion tools. The description only states the confirmation requirement, not the context or exclusions for using it.

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

Deploy Server