NeuroMedia Agent Memory

memory_delete

Delete a specific memory by ID to remove stored context, with optional force for fragments or roots and a reason for the tombstone.

Instructions

Delete a memory by id.

Args: memory_id: Memory ID to delete force: If True, allow deleting document fragments/roots. Use memory_delete_document() instead for clean document removal. reason: Optional tombstone reason (default "deleted")

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`force`	No
`reason`	No
`memory_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that 'force' allows deleting document fragments/roots, warns this is not the recommended approach for documents, and that 'reason' creates a tombstone marker. This is strong transparency for the destructive nature of the tool.

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 extremely concise—three short bullet points in the Args section plus a one-line summary. Every sentence adds unique value: purpose, parameter semantics, and usage guidance. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown but present), the description need not cover return values. It explains all three parameters, flags destructive behavior, and distinguishes a sibling. However, it does not discuss permissions, cascading effects, or error states, which would be helpful given the tool's destructive nature.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains that 'force' enables deletion of document fragments/roots with an alternative tool suggestion, and 'reason' is an optional tombstone reason with a default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare property definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('memory by id'), clearly identifying the primary action. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'memory_delete_document' by advising against using 'force' for clean document removal, which clarifies scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells when to use 'memory_delete_document' instead of this tool (for clean document removal), providing a clear exclusion. However, it does not discuss other alternatives like memory_unlink or batch operations, nor does it specify prerequisites for deletion.

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