MemHeaven

mempalace_kg_invalidate

Destructive

Set an exclusive validity end time to invalidate a specific fact in a tenant's knowledge graph.

Instructions

Invalidate an exact tenant-scoped fact by setting its exclusive validity end time.

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": {
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "predicate": "<predicate>",
      "object": "<object>"
    },
    "name": "mempalace_kg_invalidate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ended`	No	Date or timestamp at which the fact stopped being valid.
`object`	Yes	Object of the exact fact to invalidate.
`subject`	Yes	Subject of the exact fact to invalidate.
`predicate`	Yes	Predicate of the exact fact to invalidate.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fact`	Yes
`ended`	Yes
`success`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint true). The description adds that the invalidation is exact and tenant-scoped, but does not discuss behavior if the fact doesn't exist or whether the operation is reversible. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Invalidate', with no filler words. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description is minimal but combined with schema and annotations gives enough for basic invocation. However, it doesn't specify behavior for missing facts, default end time, or the meaning of 'exclusive validity end time,' so it's not fully complete.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context about 'exact fact' which reinforces subject/predicate/object matching, but doesn't explain the `ended` parameter beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool invalidates an exact tenant-scoped fact by setting a validity end time. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mempalace_kg_add and mempalace_kg_query by specifying the invalidation action.

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?

The description implies usage for ending a fact's validity, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. It lacks guidance on prerequisites such as the fact needing to already exist.

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