Skip to main content
Glama

Bring a replaced memory back

memory_supersede_undo

Restores a superseded note exactly as it was so it appears in search again, without altering the note that replaced it.

Instructions

Brings a replaced (superseded) note back exactly as it was: it shows up in search again. The note that replaced it is not touched. Safe by design (it only restores), so it needs no confirmation code; it is recorded.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "memory_supersede_undo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe id of the replaced note to bring back.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.4

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full burden, and it does add real value: the restoring is exact, the note reappears in search, the replacing note is left untouched, no confirmation code is required, and the action is recorded. Missing only permission requirements and behavior when the id is not a superseded note.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the effect and followed by side effects and safety. The 'exactly as it was' clause is slightly redundant with 'it shows up in search again,' but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation mutation tool, the description covers the essential agent concerns: what is restored, what is left alone, that no confirmation code is needed, and that the action is audited. Only failure behavior for a non-superseded id is absent.

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% and the single id parameter is already documented as 'the id of the replaced note to bring back.' The description reinforces that the id refers to the replaced note, but adds no format, range, or error semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it brings a replaced (superseded) note back and says the note will reappear in search. It is clearly a reversal operation, distinct from the sibling confirm/preview tools, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: you call this to restore a superseded note, and the line about needing no confirmation code hints that memory_supersede_confirm is not a prerequisite. There is no explicit 'use this when X, not Y' routing, and no stated precondition that the id must currently be superseded.

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