Remove a note by its ID to forget incorrect or outdated information, keeping your memory list clean and accurate.
Forget a note of your own by its id, as memory_list numbers it: one that turned out to be wrong, or one the user agreed to drop at a review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v6.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the action is to 'forget' (implying deletion) and scopes it to 'your own' notes, but does not disclose irreversibility, potential side effects, or any permission requirements. It adds some context but could be more explicit about destructive consequences.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff. The core action and resource are front-loaded, followed by useful elaboration on use cases. Every part earns its place.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what, when, and how to identify the target. It could mention irreversibility explicitly, but the word 'forget' reasonably implies deletion. Overall, an agent has enough to call it correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the id is the one used by memory_list, giving semantic meaning beyond the bare integer type. This clarifies exactly what id to pass, which is essential for correct invocation.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'forget' (i.e., remove), the resource (a note of your own), and the identifier (id as memory_list numbers it). It also gives concrete use cases (wrong note or agreed to drop at review), distinguishing it from siblings like memory_save and memory_load.
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?
It provides clear context for when to use the tool (when a note is wrong or agreed to be dropped) and implies the id comes from memory_list, guiding the agent on prerequisite steps. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.