Remove expired memories based on TTL to free storage. Use dry_run to preview deletions without affecting data.
Remove expired memories (TTL elapsed). Use dry_run to preview without deleting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No | Preview only — show what would be pruned without deleting (default: false) | |
| stale_days | No | Days since last access to consider a memory stale (default: 30) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the deletion criterion (TTL elapsed, i.e. expired memories only, not arbitrary ones) and the dry_run preview path. Missing detail on what happens to already-pruned or non-expired memories.
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?
Two tight sentences with no waste; the destructive action and its scope lead, followed by the safe-preview escape hatch. Every clause 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 destructive mutation tool with full annotation coverage and 100% schema documentation, the description supplies the essential scope and preview guidance. It lacks only edge-case behavior (what counts as expired, what happens if nothing matches), which keeps it short of a 5.
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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, establishing baseline 3. The description only echoes dry_run and says nothing about stale_days, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.
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 (Remove) and resource (memories) with a clear qualifying scope (TTL elapsed / expired). This distinguishes it from siblings like forget and memory_archive, though it doesn't name those alternatives explicitly.
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 the dry_run preview guidance, which is useful operational advice, but gives no 'when to use this vs. forget/memory_archive' routing. Usage context is implied by the TTL scope rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.