mgi-mind

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

mind_delete

Deletes a specific memory by ID from a named library; deprecated in favor of mind_library(action="delete") and removed in v2.0.

Instructions

DEPRECATED: use mind_library(action="delete"). Removed in v2.0. (Delete a specific memory by ID)

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": {
      "library": "<library>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "mind_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Memory UUID (from search results)
`library`	Yes	Library name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does add real behavioral context: the tool is deprecated and removed in v2.0, so calls may fail or be unavailable. It does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent or recoverable (a mind_restore sibling exists) or what permissions are needed.

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 tight sentence with the migration directive front-loaded and the tool's function following. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a deprecated two-parameter tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: the replacement path and removal status. It is slightly ambiguous about whether the tool still functions in the current version.

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% for both parameters (id as Memory UUID, library as Library name). The description only echoes the 'by ID' notion and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

The parenthetical states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a specific memory by ID'. It also routes the agent away from itself via the mind_library(action="delete") pointer, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings. The purpose is relegated to parentheses behind the deprecation banner, which slightly weakens front-loading.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names the replacement (mind_library(action="delete")) and the condition that makes this tool unusable ('Removed in v2.0'). The agent is told both what to use instead and why, leaving nothing to inference.

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