MDAN

mdan_memory_forget

Destructive

Delete a specific stored memory from an agent's sidecar by providing the agent name and the memory ID returned by mdan_memory_recall.

Instructions

Delete one memory from an agent sidecar

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": {
      "agent": "<agent>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "mdan_memory_forget"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Memory id from mdan_memory_recall
`agent`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.1.1Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals that this is a destructive operation, and the description does not contradict it. It adds only mild context by specifying that exactly one memory is removed from an agent sidecar, but it does not mention permanence, confirmation, or side effects.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the operation and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple deletion tool.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description is adequate for recognizing the core purpose but not complete enough for confident invocation: the agent parameter is undocumented, no return or error behavior is described, and there is no usage guidance relative to memory siblings. The destructive annotation covers safety but not selection or parameter details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema documents the id parameter as a memory id from mdan_memory_recall, but the agent parameter has no description. The phrase 'from an agent sidecar' loosely suggests agent ownership, yet the description does not explain how to supply or format the agent value, failing to compensate for the 50% schema coverage gap.

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 a clear action and target: 'Delete one memory' from an agent sidecar. The verb 'delete' and resource 'memory' make the operation unambiguous and semantically distinguish it from memory siblings like remember, recall, and list.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of mdan_memory_end_session, mdan_memory_recall, or mdan_memory_remember. The description implies deletion but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-avoidance conditions, so selection is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.