Skip to main content
Glama
Cloto-dev

CPersona

Official
by Cloto-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

delete_memory

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a single memory by ID; provide an agent ID to verify ownership before removal.

Instructions

Delete a single memory by ID. Ownership is enforced when agent_id is provided.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agent_idNoAgent ID for ownership verification (injected by kernel)
memory_idYesMemory ID to delete
session_keyNoOpaque session identity you declare: a partition hint, not authentication and not a data filter. Selects which no-persist pause applies to this call. Omit to share one bucket with every caller that omits it. Full text on recall.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.6.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / session_key / maxLength
      Added value: +256
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.5.10
    • addedInput schema / properties / session_key
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "description": "Opaque session identity you declare: a partition hint, not authentication and not a data filter. Selects which no-persist pause applies to this call. Omit to share one bucket with every caller that omits it. Full text on recall.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Addedv2.5.2
  4. Removedv2.5.1
  5. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful authorization context ('Ownership is enforced when agent_id is provided'), but does not state that the deletion is permanent/irreversible or what happens to associated data.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the ownership condition. Efficient with no padding, though minimally terse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the core action and one behavioral constraint. It omits irreversibility, cascade effects, and failure/error behavior when ownership check fails, leaving meaningful gaps for a delete tool.

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 all three parameters (agent_id, memory_id, session_key) are already documented in the schema, including the ownership-verification note on agent_id. The description restates the ownership rule but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource (delete a single memory by ID), which distinguishes it from siblings like delete_agent_data and delete_episode. However, it does not explicitly name those siblings or scope the difference beyond the singular 'single 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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named. The only conditional is about ownership enforcement, which is behavioral rather than a usage rule.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools