Skip to main content
Glama

Memory Remove Relation

localnest_memory_remove_relation
DestructiveIdempotent

Remove connections between memory entries in LocalNest MCP to maintain accurate relationships and clean up outdated associations.

Instructions

Remove a relation between two memory entries.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
source_idYes
target_idYes
response_formatNojson

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
metaNo

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for localnest_memory_remove_relation, which calls memory.removeRelation.
    async ({ source_id, target_id }) => {
      const result = await memory.removeRelation(source_id, target_id);
      return normalizeRelationRemovalResult(result, { source_id, target_id });
    }
  • Registration of the localnest_memory_remove_relation tool using registerJsonTool.
    registerJsonTool(
      ['localnest_memory_remove_relation'],
      {
        title: 'Memory Remove Relation',
        description: 'Remove a relation between two memory entries.',
        inputSchema: {
          source_id: z.string().min(1),
          target_id: z.string().min(1)
        },
        annotations: {
          readOnlyHint: false,
          destructiveHint: true,
          idempotentHint: true,
          openWorldHint: false
        }
      },
      async ({ source_id, target_id }) => {
        const result = await memory.removeRelation(source_id, target_id);
        return normalizeRelationRemovalResult(result, { source_id, target_id });
      }
    );
Behavior2/5

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

Relies entirely on annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) for behavioral traits. The description adds no context about error handling (what if the relation doesn't exist?), directionality (unidirectional vs bidirectional removal), or side effects. With destructive annotations present, the description offers minimal additional behavioral insight.

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?

Extremely concise at 7 words with no redundancy. However, given the tool's destructive nature and complete lack of schema documentation, this brevity may be excessive rather than optimal.

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?

Despite having an output schema (reducing description burden for return values), the description is inadequate for a destructive operation with undocumented parameters. It omits safety-critical context like idempotency guarantees, error conditions, and whether relation removal is reciprocal.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by implying source_id and target_id refer to 'memory entries.' However, it fails to clarify the directionality of the relation, the format of IDs, or the purpose of response_format parameter, leaving significant semantic gaps.

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 specific action (remove) and target (relation between memory entries), distinguishing it from siblings like localnest_memory_add_relation and localnest_memory_delete (which removes entries, not relations). However, it lacks specificity about relation directionality.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., whether entries must exist), or the difference between removing a relation versus deleting an entry. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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/wmt-mobile/localnest'

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