Skip to main content
Glama
ragflow-kb-mcp
by feci

ragflow_forget_memory_message

Destructive

Remove a memory message so agents stop retrieving it and it is evicted first when memory space runs out.

Instructions

Forget a memory message: agents stop retrieving it and it is evicted first when space runs out.

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>",
      "message_id": "<message_id>"
    },
    "name": "ragflow_forget_memory_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
memory_idYesMemory ID
message_idYesMessage ID (an integer within its memory)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining retrieval exclusion and eviction priority, but it omits key details such as reversibility, permanence, and permission requirements for a destructive operation.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core operation and its effect. There is no repetition or filler.

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 and annotations already mark the operation as destructive, reducing what the description must carry. However, for a destructive memory operation, it should still clarify permanence or reversibility and distinguish it from status changes or deletion, which it does not.

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%, with both memory_id and message_id documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('Forget') and resource ('a memory message'), making the operation understandable without opening the schema. It does not differentiate this from nearby tools such as ragflow_set_memory_message_status or ragflow_delete_memory, so it falls 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?

The description explains the effect of forgetting (agents stop retrieving it, eviction priority) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like set_memory_message_status or delete_memory. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use routing information.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools