Life Memory MCP

delete_memory

Delete a single local memory entry by ID using your owner token. Published or mirrored copies remain unaffected.

Instructions

Delete one local memory entry. Requires owner token. This cannot remove copies already published or mirrored elsewhere.

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": {
      "profile": "<profile>",
      "owner_token": "<owner_token>",
      "memory_id": "<memory_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_memory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`profile`	Yes
`memory_id`	Yes
`owner_token`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add valuable context: an owner token is required, and deletions do not propagate to published/mirrored copies. It does not disclose whether the local deletion is permanent/irreversible, how failures are reported, or rate limits, so it stops short of a full behavioral picture for a destructive operation.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the credential requirement and then the scope caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a destructive local mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers purpose, authentication, and blast radius but leaves irreversibility, error behavior, and two of three parameters unexplained.

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% across three required parameters. The description only clarifies one of them, owner_token, as an authorization credential. It says nothing about the meaning or expected form of 'profile' or the UUID 'memory_id', so the least-documented parameters are left entirely to the agent's inference.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete one local memory entry') and scopes it as local, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on shared/published memories. An agent can tell what this tool does 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the use case (removing a local entry) and draws a boundary by noting it cannot remove published or mirrored copies, which hints the agent must look elsewhere for those. However, it never names an alternative tool (e.g., set_memory_sharing) or states when not to use this tool.

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

Deploy Server