purge_memoryPreview or permanently remove matching memory records, with automatic backup before an applied purge.
Preview or permanently remove matching records from the canonical store. A backup is created before an applied purge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| before | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| confirm | No | False previews the purge; true applies it and creates a backup. | |
| namespace | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the description adds the backup-before-purge behavior and the preview/apply distinction, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose what 'matching records' means, whether the purge is reversible via backup, or any side effects on related data. Given annotations, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, two sentences, with the primary action (preview/remove) front-loaded. It avoids redundancy and is efficiently structured, though it could have used the space to clarify matching criteria.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 6 parameters, no output schema, and low parameter descriptions, the description is inadequate. It does not explain how to construct a matching query, what the backup entails, or what the preview output looks like. The tool's complexity demands more context than provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 17% (only 'confirm' has a description). The description mentions 'matching records' but does not explain how id, tags, before, source, or namespace contribute to matching. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameter meaning largely ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('preview or permanently remove') and resource ('matching records from the canonical store'). It conveys the core action but does not differentiate from sibling tools like delete_memory or supersede_memory, which also perform removals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions for preview vs. apply, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the parameter schema and tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.