codemem

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

memory_forget

DestructiveIdempotent

Soft-delete a memory by its exact ID to exclude it from normal retrieval; not a secure erase. Use when a memory should no longer surface in prompts.

Instructions

Soft-delete a memory by exact ID so it no longer appears in normal retrieval; this is not secure erasure. Does not inherit the default project; optional filters must match or the tool returns not_found.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	No	Filter by memory kind
`project`	No	Filter by project scope (matches sessions.project)
`scope_id`	No	Filter by a single sharing domain scope_id
`memory_id`	Yes	Memory ID to forget
`trust_bias`	No
`visibility`	No
`personal_first`	No
`ownership_scope`	No
`exclude_actor_ids`	No
`exclude_scope_ids`	No	Sharing domain scope_ids to exclude
`include_actor_ids`	No
`include_scope_ids`	No	Sharing domain scope_ids to include
`exclude_visibility`	No
`include_visibility`	No
`exclude_trust_states`	No
`include_trust_states`	No
`exclude_workspace_ids`	No
`include_workspace_ids`	No
`widen_shared_when_weak`	No
`exclude_workspace_kinds`	No
`include_workspace_kinds`	No
`widen_shared_min_personal_score`	No
`widen_shared_min_personal_results`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.44.2Sep 10, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "status": {
+      "const": "ok",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the delete is soft, it is not a secure erasure, it does not inherit the default project, and optional filters must match or the call returns not_found. This genuinely helps predict side effects beyond the schema and annotations alone.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the core soft-delete behavior first, then the safety-relevant distinction from secure erasure, then the project/filter condition. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 23 parameters and 26% schema coverage, the description is not fully complete: it is enough for the minimal call 'memory_id only', and an output schema exists, but it does not explain the rich filter parameter space. This leaves gaps for any agent that needs to scope the delete with project, visibility, trust, actor, or workspace parameters in a meaningful way.

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?

Schema description coverage is very low at 26%, so the description should compensate. It only clarifies memory_id and the general behavior of 'optional filters must match'; it does not explain the many filter parameters such as ownership_scope, visibility, trust_bias, workspace filters, or the include/exclude arrays. Thus it leaves most parameters functionally undocumented.

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?

The description names a precise verb and resource: 'soft-delete a memory by exact ID' and immediately clarifies its effect ('no longer appears in normal retrieval') and limits ('not secure erasure'). This is enough for an agent to distinguish the tool from its read/search siblings without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the usage: call it when you want to forget a specific memory by ID. It adds useful caveats about the default project and optional filters matching, but it never gives explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, so it relies on the agent to infer selection criteria.

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

Deploy Server