Skip to main content
Glama

delete_backup

Remove specified backup files from the Memory MCP Server to manage storage and maintain organized memory systems.

Instructions

刪除指定的備份文件

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
backup_pathYes備份文件路徑

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that implements the delete_backup tool logic. It destructures the backup_path from args, verifies file existence with fs.access, deletes the file using fs.unlink, and returns a success response with the deleted path or an error message.
    async handler(args) {
      const { backup_path } = args;
    
      try {
        // 確保文件存在
        await fs.access(backup_path);
    
        // 刪除文件
        await fs.unlink(backup_path);
    
        return {
          success: true,
          deleted_file: backup_path
        };
      } catch (error) {
        return {
          success: false,
          error: error.message
        };
      }
    }
  • The Zod input schema defining the required backup_path parameter as a string.
    inputSchema: z.object({
      backup_path: z.string().describe('備份文件路徑')
    }),
  • src/index.js:161-162 (registration)
    Initial registration of all backup tools, including delete_backup, by calling createBackupTools and adding them to the toolRegistry with 'backup' scope.
    const backupTools = createBackupTools(getShortTermManager, getLongTermManager, getStorageManager);
    backupTools.forEach(tool => registerTool(tool, 'backup'));
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '刪除' clearly indicates a destructive operation, it doesn't specify whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, whether there are confirmation prompts, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is extremely concise - a single phrase that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what errors might occur, or important behavioral aspects like whether deletions are permanent. Given the complexity and risk profile of a delete operation, more context is needed.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'backup_path' clearly documented in the schema as '備份文件路徑' (backup file path). The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameter beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('刪除' meaning delete) and the resource ('指定的備份文件' meaning specified backup file), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_long_term_memory' or 'delete_short_term_memories', which also perform deletion operations on different resources.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing to identify a backup first), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'list_backups' (to find backups) or 'restore_memories' (which might involve backups).

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/win10ogod/memory-mcp-server'

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