Mark stored memory events as consumed using their event IDs. Clear processed events to keep agent memory current and return the count of cleared entries.
Mark events as consumed.
Args: event_ids: List of event IDs to mark as consumed
Returns: Dictionary with count of cleared events
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_ids | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose whether 'mark as consumed' is destructive or reversible, nor does it mention idempotency or side effects. No annotations exist to supplement, so the agent lacks critical behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single action sentence and clear Args/Returns sections. Every word earns its place, with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is adequate. However, it lacks context on the event lifecycle and relationship to siblings, making it slightly incomplete for full autonomous use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds basic meaning by stating event_ids are IDs to mark as consumed. However, it does not specify constraints like uniqueness, range, or behavior for invalid IDs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool marks events as consumed, with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling 'memory_events_poll' by indicating a different operation on events.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 vs alternatives like memory_events_poll. There are no prerequisites or conditions for clearing events, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.