Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
saihm-mcp-server (standards client)

saihm-mcp-server (standards client)

by SAIHM-Admin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Forget (GDPR erasure)

saihm_forget
DestructiveIdempotent

Erase one memory by its cell id. Whether erasure is cryptographic (the key is destroyed, so no one can read the content again) or access-control (the cell is withdrawn from service) depends on the operator; check its documentation.

Instructions

Erase one memory by its cell id. Whether erasure is cryptographic (the key is destroyed, so no one can read the content again) or access-control (the cell is withdrawn from service) depends on the operator; check its documentation. Irreversible: use it when erasure is the intent, not to tidy a working set.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "saihm_forget"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesMemory entry ID (hex cellId) to erase

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine value beyond them: the mechanism may be cryptographic (key destroyed) or access-control (cell withdrawn), is operator-dependent, and the effect is irreversible. It stops short of stating what the caller sees afterward or whether the id remains valid.

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, zero filler, and the irreversible warning is placed before the usage guidance so the risk is read first. Every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential unknowns: irreversibility and variable erasure mechanism. It could note whether the erased id can be reused or how errors surface, but nothing critical for invocation 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% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented as the hex cellId. The phrase 'by its cell id' restates the schema without adding format, constraints, or examples, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with explicit cardinality: 'Erase one memory by its cell id.' This is unmistakably distinct from siblings like saihm_recall or saihm_remember, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance ('use it when erasure is the intent') and a when-not ('not to tidy a working set'). It does not name a sibling alternative for the tidy-up case (e.g. saihm_revoke_share or a working-set operation), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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