Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Memorable MCP Server

Memorable MCP Server

by leouofa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

memorable_delete_memory

Permanently deletes a memory and all its attachments by ID, removing stored context from Memorable so AI assistants stop recalling outdated or unwanted information.

Instructions

Permanently delete a memory and its associated attachments from Memorable

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": "memorable_delete_memory"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesUnique identifier of the memory to permanently delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose the two most important traits: the deletion is permanent and it cascades to attachments. It says nothing about permissions, behavior when the id does not exist, or whether the call is idempotent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The destructive qualifier appears before the scope detail, which is the right ordering for an agent scanning for risk.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials of what is destroyed but leaves failure modes and preconditions unstated. Adequate, with clear room to say what happens on an invalid or already-deleted id.

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 there is only one parameter, so the schema already defines the id fully. The description adds no format, range, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema provides; 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 (permanently delete a memory) plus the cascade scope (associated attachments), which helps distinguish it from memorable_delete_attachment. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent whether to use this versus memorable_delete_attachment when only an attachment is targeted, nor whether the memory must be unpinned or empty first.

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