Verified Repo Memory MCP

vrm_forget

Delete specific memories from verified repository storage to maintain accurate, up-to-date information for AI coding agents.

Instructions

Manually delete a memory by 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": {
      "memoryId": "<memoryId>"
    },
    "name": "vrm_forget"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`memoryId`	Yes
`hardDelete`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Feb 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states 'delete' without disclosing implications such as whether deletion is permanent, what 'hardDelete' means, whether deletion is reversible, or what happens to associated memory. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and target resource.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and an unexplained 'hardDelete' parameter, the description is too brief to fully prepare an agent. It does not mention return values, deletion permanence, or any side effects, leaving important gaps for a deletion tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'memoryId' via 'by ID' but completely ignores the 'hardDelete' parameter, which is crucial for understanding whether deletion is soft or permanent. Half the parameters are semantically unexplained.

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 uses the specific verb 'delete' with the resource 'memory' and identifies the key mechanism ('by ID'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from its siblings (store, search, retrieve, list) by centering on deletion.

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?

The word 'Manually' provides context that this tool is for user-initiated deletion, likely contrasting with automatic memory management. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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

Deploy Server