Connapse

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

memory_forget

Destructive

Permanently delete a fact and every earlier or later corrected version so nothing remains; use memory_correct instead when recording a changed value.

Instructions

Delete a fact for good, with every earlier and later version of it from corrections. Nothing of it is kept. To record that a value changed, use memory_correct instead.

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": {
      "factId": "<factId>"
    },
    "name": "memory_forget"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`factId`	Yes	ID of the fact to delete
`containerId`	No	Optional and not needed: the fact is found by its id in every space you can see

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.4.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The destructiveHint=true annotation only flags that deletion occurs; the description adds the critical scope detail that the correction history is cascade-deleted ("every earlier and later version") and that nothing is retained. That is exactly the context an agent needs before invoking an irreversible write, and it goes beyond what the annotation supplies.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive scope and closing with the alternative routing. No restatement of the name or title and no filler.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with annotations and a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose, blast radius, irreversibility, and the correct alternative. With no output schema, no return-value explanation is owed, and nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 both factId and containerId are already documented, including the note that containerId is optional because the fact is resolved by id across visible spaces. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier format or resolution behavior, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Delete a fact") and immediately scopes it ("with every earlier and later version of it from corrections"), which tells an agent exactly what is removed. It explicitly names the sibling it is not ("To record that a value changed, use memory_correct instead"), so the boundary is clear without opening either schema.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-the-alternative split: delete here for permanent removal, memory_correct for recording a change. The phrase "Nothing of it is kept" also signals the irreversible condition under which this tool is appropriate.

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