spatial-memory-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

forget

Delete a memory from the spatial memory system using its unique ID. Removes outdated or incorrect knowledge to keep the knowledge graph accurate.

Instructions

Delete a memory by its ID.

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": "forget"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`_agent_id`	No	Optional agent identifier for request tracing and per-agent rate limiting.
`memory_id`	Yes	The ID of the memory to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.11.4Sep 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly indicates a destructive action targeting a memory, but it does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent/irreversible, whether there are side effects, or what happens when the memory_id does not exist.

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?

A single, complete sentence with no redundant words. The core information is front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding the operation.

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 delete operation with one required, well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It only lacks minor behavioral details such as permanence or response behavior.

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 the schema already documents memory_id as 'The ID of the memory to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, and the optional _agent_id parameter is only described in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('a memory'), and a precise targeting method ('by its ID'). It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as forget_batch.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use the tool: when you have a single memory_id and want to delete that memory. However, it gives no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, and does not mention the sibling forget_batch for bulk deletion scenarios.

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