totem-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

memory_delete_tool

Soft-delete a memory item by providing its ID and a required reason, preserving an audit trail for persistent knowledge.

Instructions

Soft-delete a memory item. Reason is required.

Args: id: The memory item ID reason: Required reason for deletion project: Optional project root path. Auto-detected from git root if omitted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`actor`	No
`reason`	Yes
`project`	No
`session`	No
`request_id`	No
`operation_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.6.0Oct 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / actor

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Actor"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / operation_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Operation Id"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / request_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Request Id"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / session

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Session"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that deletion is 'soft' (implying recoverability) and that reason is mandatory, which is real behavioral value. However, it omits permission requirements, recovery path, and what happens to relations of the deleted item.

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?

The key constraint ('Reason is required') is front-loaded right after the verb+resource, and the Args block is terse. Slightly verbose in restating id/reason descriptions, but overall efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a 7-param mutation tool with no annotations, the description leaves half the parameters and the authorization/recovery model undocumented, so it is only partially complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents id, reason, and project semantics (auto-detection from git root), covering 3 of 7 parameters, but leaves actor, session, request_id, and operation_id entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Soft-delete a memory item'. This is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like memory_get_tool or memory_create_tool. It does not explicitly name any alternative or contrast, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

It notes that a reason is required, which is a prerequisite, but offers no guidance on when to delete versus alternatives like memory_update_tool, memory_gc_tool, or resolve_conflict_tool. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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