Skip to main content
Glama
hermoso-ai

Hermoso

Official
by hermoso-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Tidy the Memory list

tidy_memory
DestructiveIdempotent

Clean and consolidate workspace memory: remove product-behavior notes, phone numbers, and emails, and merge near-duplicate facts into one sentence each. Preview first, then confirm to apply.

Instructions

Clean up and consolidate the workspace Memory: drops entries that are about how Hermoso, a tool, a connector or a platform API behaves (product behaviour, not the brand), drops phone numbers and emails, and merges near-duplicate facts into one sentence each. Call with no argument to get the PROPOSAL (what would be removed and merged, with reasons) — nothing changes. Call again with confirm:true to apply it through the same typed writers the app uses (deletes carry tombstones so they stay deleted on every device). One small model call; a few credits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brandNoprofile id/name from list_brands, this call only
confirmNotrue to APPLY the proposal; omit to only see it

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.374
    • changedInput schema / properties / brand / description
      Previous value: -"brand id/name from list_brands, this call only"New value: +"profile id/name from list_brands, this call only"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.371
    • addedInput schema / properties / brand
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "brand id/name from list_brands, this call only",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Addedv0.1.193

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: the two-phase proposal/apply flow (nothing changes first call), application through 'the same typed writers the app uses', tombstoned deletes that stay deleted across devices, and a cost note (one small model call, a few credits). Annotations cover write/destructive/idempotent hints, but the description uniquely explains reversibility stance and cross-device persistence. Minor gap: doesn't describe the proposal's return format, though no output schema exists.

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?

Three tight sentences, each carrying distinct payload (scope, dry-run workflow, apply semantics and cost). Front-loaded with the core action. Slightly dense but no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given a destructive, two-phase mutation with zero-param defaults and no output schema, the description covers what gets removed, what gets merged, how to preview, how to apply, safety of deletes, and cost. It doesn't specify the proposal's field structure or how brand scoping interacts with workspace-level Memory, which is a small residual gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds the practical meaning of confirm ('nothing changes' vs 'apply') and the ephemeral scope of brand ('this call only' is in the schema description too), which is a modest clarification rather than new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States specific verbs and resource: 'Clean up and consolidate the workspace Memory', then enumerates the exact operations (drops product-behaviour entries, drops phone/email, merges near-duplicates). This is unmistakably distinct from siblings list_memory, remember, and forget.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states the dry-run-first workflow: call with no argument to get the PROPOSAL with reasons, then call again with confirm:true to apply. The condition selecting each mode is spelled out, which is exactly what an agent needs.

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