Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
memdb

memdb

by j0hanz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Delete Memory

delete_memory
Destructive

Remove a specific memory from persistent storage by providing its SHA-256 hash. Ensures unwanted knowledge is deleted from the knowledge graph.

Instructions

Delete by hash

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": {
      "hash": "<hash>"
    },
    "name": "delete_memory"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashYesHash of the memory (SHA-256, 64 hex chars)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
errorNo
resultNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.4.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals destructiveness, but the description adds no behavioral context such as permanence, idempotency, or scope. It is consistent with the annotation and not contradictory, but it contributes little beyond what the annotation already says.

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?

The description is only three words, front-loaded, and contains no filler. It is appropriately compact for a one-parameter destructive operation, though its terseness contributes to the missing usage and behavior guidance.

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?

The operation is simple and the schema, output schema, and destructiveHint annotation carry most of the needed information. However, the description leaves sibling selection (especially 'delete_memories') implicit and does not clarify side effects beyond the annotation.

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%, including the SHA-256/64-hex format, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'by hash' merely references the parameter rather than adding meaning like not-found behavior or whether deletion is idempotent.

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 gives a clear verb ('Delete') and selection mechanism ('by hash'), and the tool name/title supplies the resource ('memory'). It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'delete_memories' tool.

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 about when to use this tool versus 'delete_memories', 'update_memory', or other siblings. It does not state whether it deletes a single memory, require any preconditions, or mention batch deletion alternatives.

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