mem0-mcp

delete_memory

Remove a single memory using its ID to delete unwanted or outdated information from the memory store.

Instructions

Delete a single memory by its id. Confirm the memory_id with the user first if it wasn't just returned by another tool call.

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": {
      "memory_id": "<memory_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_memory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`memory_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the deletion action and adds a crucial confirmation requirement, implying irreversibility. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, permission requirements, or error conditions beyond the core delete behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no extraneous information. The confirmation instruction earns its place and is directly actionable.

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 simple deletion tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential action and a key usage guideline. It could mention the irreversible nature or what the response contains, but overall it's sufficiently complete for most use cases.

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?

The description mentions 'by its id', which maps to the memory_id parameter, clarifying its purpose. However, it doesn't provide format details or source guidance beyond the confirmation hint. With only one parameter, the description adds some meaning over the schema but doesn't fully compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete'), the resource ('a single memory'), and the scope ('by its id'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_memories, get_memory, and update_memory, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Provides an explicit usage guideline: confirm the memory_id with the user first unless it was just returned by another tool call. This clarifies when it's appropriate to call the tool and implies a safety check. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., use update_memory for modifications) or when not to use this tool.

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

Deploy Server