Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
shared-memory

shared-memory

by hina13140219-sys
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

memory_delete

Delete a stored memory by its ID when the user asks to forget something. This removes one shared-memory note or preference so it no longer appears in searches.

Instructions

Delete one memory by id. Only when the user asks to forget something.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "memory_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe id shown in square brackets in search results

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about irreversibility, whether deletion is hard or soft, required permissions, or what happens if the id doesn't exist. It discloses only scope ("one memory", keyed by id). For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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?

Two short sentences, action first, constraint second — no filler and nothing to trim.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what and when. The main outstanding item is destructive-risk context (irreversibility, missing-id behavior), but the operational core is present.

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% and the schema itself explains the id format ("shown in square brackets in search results"), so the parameter is already well documented. The description's "by id" adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete one memory") plus the lookup key ("by id"), which clearly separates it from memory_save and memory_search. It doesn't name the siblings explicitly, but the destructive verb makes the distinction obvious.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"Only when the user asks to forget something" gives both a positive trigger and a restrictive when-not condition, which is unusually disciplined for a short description. It does not name alternative tools (e.g. memory_save for updates) or explain what to do when the request is ambiguous.

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