midas-memory-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Forget memory

forget

Destructive

Delete a specific memory using its ID, preserving the walkable history of belief revisions by automatically relinking supersession chains.

Instructions

Delete a single memory by id (ids come from recall). Supersession chains through the deleted record are relinked, so belief-revision history stays walkable.

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": {
      "memory_id": "<memory_id>"
    },
    "name": "forget"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`memory_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (`destructiveHint=true`). Description adds that supersession chains are relinked to preserve belief-revision history, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Information is front-loaded and every sentence contributes meaning.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, output schema exists), the description covers the deletion behavior, parameter source, and the relinking detail. Missing explicit mention of return value, but output schema handles that.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only states that IDs come from `recall`, adding minimal meaning to the `memory_id` parameter. No format, constraints, or examples provided.

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 it deletes a single memory by ID, with IDs sourced from `recall`. This distinguishes it from siblings like `forget_all` and `forget_matching`.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Specifies that IDs come from `recall`, guiding when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like `forget_matching` for pattern-based deletion.

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