Archive a memory by its ID to retain it for auditability while preventing it from appearing in normal recall and startup context.
Archive a memory so it is retained for auditability but excluded from normal recall and startup context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| memory_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the key behavioral trait: the memory is retained for auditability but excluded from normal recall and startup context. This goes beyond the schema and annotations (which are absent), providing important context about what 'forget' actually means. It doesn't mention reversibility or permissions, but the core behavior is well explained.
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?
One sentence, zero waste, and the most important behavioral distinction is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior. It doesn't explain the return value or whether the operation is reversible, but the output schema exists and the core semantics are clear. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description doesn't explain the memory_id parameter beyond what the schema shows (a string identifier). However, with only one parameter and a clear name, the meaning is fairly obvious. The description could have added context about where to find the memory_id (e.g., from list_memories), but the baseline is acceptable.
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 verb 'Archive' and the resource 'a memory', and specifies the key behavioral distinction: retained for auditability but excluded from normal recall and startup context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recall_memory and list_memories.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool: when a memory should be archived but not deleted, and when it should be excluded from recall/startup. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.