Delete a stored memory and all its linked edges by node ID, so agents can remove outdated or incorrect facts from persistent long-term memory.
Delete a memory and its edges.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful trait – that deletion cascades to 'its edges' – but says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, whether the node must exist, or what is returned on success/failure.
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?
A single tight sentence with the destructive action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise.
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?
For a destructive, non-read-only operation with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented sole parameter, the description is too thin. It omits the information an agent most needs before calling it: that the delete is permanent, and what identifier form node_id expects.
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 0% and the description never mentions node_id. It also introduces a terminology mismatch, calling the target 'a memory' while the schema parameter is 'Node Id' (integer), leaving an agent unsure whether it passes a memory identifier or a graph node identifier.
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?
States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a memory') and adds a scope detail ('and its edges') that distinguishes it from a mere unlink. However, it never names a sibling such as memory_dismiss or memory_consolidate, so an agent must infer which of the many memory-mutating siblings this is for.
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 when-to-use guidance at all. With siblings like memory_dismiss, memory_resolve, and memory_consolidate all plausibly removing or altering memories, the description gives no condition for choosing memory_forget over them, nor any prerequisite.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.