Permanently remove a stored memory from the local SQLite memory store. Use it to clear outdated or incorrect project context; confirm=true is required.
Delete a memory. Requires confirm=true (high-risk).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| memory_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a confirm=true gate that is not encoded as a required parameter in the schema, telling the agent a second flag must be set for this high-risk action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the gating requirement. Nothing is wasted and no filler is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies the key missing operational detail (confirm gate). Only minor gaps remain, such as what happens if confirm is omitted or false.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and only titles are present, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains the confirm flag (must be true, because high-risk), but says nothing about memory_id beyond what the name implies, leaving half the parameters essentially undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (a memory), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like memory_save, memory_update, and memory_search. No explicit sibling contrast, but the operation is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a concrete prerequisite ('Requires confirm=true') and flags the operation as high-risk, which implies when it should be used. It does not, however, contrast with alternatives (e.g., memory_update for editing) or state when deletion is inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.