Skip to main content
Glama
chat-memory
by mav-rix

supersede

Mark an old memory ID as replaced by a new ID, hiding the old memory from recall while keeping it stored.

Instructions

Mark old_id as replaced by new_id. The old memory is hidden from recall but kept.

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": {
      "old_id": "<old_id>",
      "new_id": "<new_id>"
    },
    "name": "supersede"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
new_idYes
old_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key consequence: the old memory is hidden from recall but retained, so the operation is non-destructive in effect. It does not cover error behavior for invalid or already-superseded IDs, whether the action can be reversed, or any permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the resulting state. No redundant restatement of the tool name and nothing that could be trimmed.

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?

The tool is simple (two required integer IDs) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The essential behavioral outcome is stated; only edge-case handling (missing IDs, repeat supersession) is left unaddressed, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 0% — the parameters only carry titles 'Old Id' and 'New Id'. The description compensates by clarifying the role of each (old_id is the memory being replaced, new_id the replacement), which is genuinely useful, but adds no format, validation, or existence constraints.

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 description gives a specific verb and resource relationship: it marks old_id as replaced by new_id, so an agent can tell this is a supersession/link operation rather than a deletion or edit. The contrast with a delete-style sibling is implied by 'hidden from recall but kept', though no sibling (e.g. forget, update_memory) is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: you would use it when one memory replaces another. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over forget (deletion) or update_memory (in-place edit), and no preconditions such as both IDs needing to exist.

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