Skip to main content
Glama
arctop

Seamless

by arctop
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

memory_delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove an erroneous memory by name, deleting its markdown file and index entry. Use only for duplicates, tests, or misplaced writes; replace wrong knowledge with a superseding write instead.

Instructions

Delete a memory by name: the markdown file leaves the disk and its index row goes with it, with no provenance and no pointer left behind. Prefer nearly anything else. To replace knowledge that turned out to be wrong, use memory_write with supersedes -- the old memory drops out of every index (briefings, recall) but stays readable, pointing at what replaced it, which is how a later reader learns the thing was reconsidered rather than that it was never believed. To retire something merely stale, leave it for the gardener's archive proposal. Reserve deletion for memories written by mistake: a duplicate, a test, a write into the wrong project.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesmemory name
projectNoproject slug; defaults to the bound session's project
sessionNothe session to act as: the name session_start returned, the cc/<id> or cx/<id> on your briefing's 'Seam session' line, or a session ULID. It scopes and credits this call. Defaults to this connection's session; pass it on every call when session_start reports the connection as stateless

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.4
    • addedInput schema / properties / session
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "the session to act as: the name session_start returned, the cc/<id> or cx/<id> on your briefing's 'Seam session' line, or a session ULID. It scopes and credits this call. Defaults to this connection's session; pass it on every call when session_start reports the connection as stateless",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them by explaining exactly what destruction means here (file removed plus index row removed, no provenance, nothing left pointing at the old memory) and contrasting it with the soft-removal semantics of supersedes. That is precisely the context an agent needs before an irreversible call.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its consequence before any alternatives, and every subsequent sentence carries a distinct routing rule rather than restating the same caution. Length is justified by the irreversible nature of the operation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: irreversibility, what exactly is destroyed, and the preferred alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is left unstated.

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%, so name, project, and session are already documented in the schema, including the session scoping rules. The description only echoes 'by name' and adds no format, naming, or scoping detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Delete a memory by name') and immediately characterizes the mechanism's effect: the markdown file leaves the disk and its index row goes with it. The phrase 'with no provenance and no pointer left behind' distinguishes it sharply from memory_write with supersedes and from the gardener archive path.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-not guidance ('Prefer nearly anything else') followed by named alternatives with the conditions that select them: memory_write/supersedes for wrong knowledge, gardener archive for stale knowledge, delete only for mistakes like duplicates or tests. This is the strongest form of sibling routing.

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