Remove a stored personal memory entry by ID when a user asks to forget something or when newer information makes it outdated.
Delete a personal memory entry by ID. Use when: 1) User asks to forget something. 2) Entry is outdated/contradicted by newer info. Always use get_context or list_contexts first to find the entry ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The UUID of the context entry to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a destructive mutation on 'personal memory' scope and that an ID must first be discovered, but it never states permanence/irreversibility, whether confirmation is required, or what the deletion returns.
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?
Front-loaded with verb+resource, then a compact numbered condition list, then the prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, triggers, and the ID-discovery prerequisite. It stops short of disclosing deletion permanence or confirmation behavior, 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.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented as a UUID, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds that the ID must be sourced via get_context/list_contexts, which is workflow guidance rather than new parameter meaning.
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 and resource ('Delete a personal memory entry by ID'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the read siblings get_context/list_contexts it references. An agent can tell what it does and what it targets without opening the schema.
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?
Provides explicit triggering conditions ('User asks to forget something' / 'Entry is outdated/contradicted by newer info') and a mandated prerequisite workflow ('Always use get_context or list_contexts first to find the entry ID'). Routing to the ID-discovery tools is concrete and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.