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

ragflow_set_memory_message_status

Toggle whether a specific memory message is visible to agents, enabling or hiding it within a RAGFlow memory.

Instructions

Enable or disable a memory message for agents.

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>",
      "enabled": "<enabled>"
    },
    "name": "ragflow_set_memory_message_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
enabledYesFalse hides the message from agents
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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the toggle affects agent visibility, and it does not say whether the change is reversible or persisted, which is left implicit in 'enable or disable'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, so conciseness is a strength even though substance is thin.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema, so the description needn't explain return values. However, for a state-mutating toggle the description leaves cross-tool disambiguation and reversibility unaddressed, making it minimally sufficient rather than 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 100%, and the schema already explains that enabled=false hides the message from agents and documents memory_id and message_id. The description adds nothing 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 names a specific verb pair (enable/disable) and resource (memory message), scoped to agents. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the close sibling ragflow_forget_memory_message, which also removes messages from agent visibility.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this toggle versus ragflow_forget_memory_message or ragflow_add_memory_message, and no mention of prerequisites such as ownership of the memory. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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