SecondBrain

memory_candidate_expire

Expire a SecondBrain memory candidate by ID without altering canonical Markdown, with an optional review reason for audit context.

Instructions

Expire a candidate without changing canonical Markdown.

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": {
      "candidate_id": "<candidate_id>"
    },
    "name": "memory_candidate_expire"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`candidate_id`	Yes
`review_reason`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.2.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses one side effect in the negative — canonical Markdown is not modified — but says nothing about whether expiry is reversible, whether the candidate remains retrievable, whether it is a terminal state, or whether it requires elevated permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined pruning.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a state-mutating tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, this description is too thin. It never states what happens to the candidate after expiry, what the caller gets back, or what review_reason is for.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions neither parameter. candidate_id is inferable from its name and required status, but review_reason is completely unexplained — whether it is recorded, shown to reviewers, or expected on every expiry is left unknown.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Expire") with a specific resource ("a candidate"), so the operation is identifiable at a glance. The closing clause "without changing canonical Markdown" further distinguishes it from write-through siblings like memory_candidate_approve. It stops short of clarifying how "expire" differs from memory_candidate_reject, which is the obvious neighboring action.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to expire a candidate versus rejecting, deleting, or leaving it pending, and no mention of prerequisites or review workflow context. The agent must infer the selection rule from the verb alone.

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

Deploy Server