Skip to main content
Glama
synpareia

Synpareia Trust Toolkit

Official

forget_counterparty

Erase a counterparty and all your evaluations from the local journal, permanently removing the record. Enforces your right to erasure under GDPR.

Instructions

Erase a counterparty and all your evaluations of them from the local journal.

Permanently removes the Tier-1 record matched by identifier (a local:... id or a DID alias) — its display-name history, custom fields, and every note/score you attached. This is the local-data counterpart to the directory-side delete_profile: it is how "erasure stays under your control" is enforced for the counterparty journal (GDPR Art. 17, on your own machine). Your private notes were never uploaded, so there is no journal copy elsewhere to recall.

Scope — read this before reporting an erasure to a data subject: this erases the journal record only. Signed conversation/recording chains (stored in conversations/ as conv_<id>.json) that reference the same counterparty are NOT touched by this tool (deleting them would break the tamper-evidence property they exist for); the response says so on every successful erase so you don't over-report.

Erasure is idempotent: forgetting an identifier that isn't (or is no longer) in the journal returns forgotten: false without error — the end state (no such record) is what erasure guarantees. Call recall_counterparty first if you want to confirm the identifier before erasing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
identifierYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It details permanent removal of Tier-1 record, display-name history, custom fields, notes/scores. It clarifies what is NOT touched (conversation files) and describes idempotent behavior and response structure.

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?

The description is lengthy but well-structured with clear sections. The GDPR reference adds some verbosity but is relevant. Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly tighter.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity and presence of output schema, the description covers all key aspects: action, scope, limitations, idempotency, and related tools. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The single parameter `identifier` is documented in the description as expecting a `local:...` id or a DID alias, adding meaning beyond the schema's type string. Schema coverage is 0%, but description compensates fully.

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 erases a counterparty and all evaluations from the local journal. It specifies the resource and action, and distinguishes from the sibling tool `delete_profile` by noting the tool operates on the local journal vs directory-side.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit when-to-use (erasure under user control, GDPR enforcement) and when-not-to-use (does not delete conversation chains). It suggests calling `recall_counterparty` first for confirmation, and explains idempotent behavior.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/synpareia/trust-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server