spatial-memory-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

forget_batch

Delete multiple stored memories at once by providing their unique IDs, clearing selected records from the semantic memory system in a single operation.

Instructions

Delete multiple memories by their IDs.

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_ids": "<memory_ids>"
    },
    "name": "forget_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`_agent_id`	No	Optional agent identifier for request tracing and per-agent rate limiting.
`memory_ids`	Yes	Array of memory IDs to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.11.4Sep 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a destructive delete action but provides no details about reversibility, partial failure handling, permissions, or what happens if some memory IDs do 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the action, target, and selection mechanism, earning its place in one concise sentence.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple with one required parameter and full schema coverage, so the core invocation is complete. However, there is no output schema and no behavioral caveats, leaving some uncertainty about batch operation semantics such as invalid IDs or return values.

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 input schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the deletion purpose, warranting the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('multiple memories') and adds the key differentiator 'by their IDs' and 'multiple', which distinguishes it from the singular sibling tool 'forget'. An agent can immediately understand the tool's scope.

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 this tool is for deleting multiple memories at once, which provides an implied usage context relative to the 'forget' sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose 'forget_batch' over 'forget' or any other alternative, leaving usage rules inferential.

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