forgetDelete a saved Memory item by its id (from list_memory). Records a cross-device delete so it doesn’t come back. Minor + re-creatable (you can remember it again), so no confirm needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the memory item id (from list_memory) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description goes beyond annotations by explaining that it records a cross-device delete so the memory doesn't come back, and that it's re-creatable via 'remember'. This adds valuable behavioral context about persistence and reversibility, with no contradictions.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and additional context (cross-device delete, re-creatable) is delivered efficiently. Every sentence 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 simple one-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it deletes, where the id comes from, and the exact behavior regarding persistence and reversibility. Combined with annotations, the agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.
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 description coverage is 100% and the id parameter description already states it is 'the memory item id (from list_memory)'. The tool description repeats this same source, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description states a clear verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('saved Memory item'), and explicitly links the id to list_memory. It unambiguously identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from the many other delete_* tools by targeting memory specifically.
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?
It provides context on when to use it: it mentions that the id comes from list_memory and that the action is minor and re-creatable, so no confirmation is needed. This gives usage context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions that would select a different tool, but none exist for memory deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With 293 tools, the surface is enormous and many tools have overlapping purposes—multiple posting tools (post_to_meta, post_to_linkedin, schedule_post, etc.), multiple analytics tools per channel, and several search tools (search_meta_ads, search_instagram, search_reddit...). While each description is detailed, the volume makes it difficult for an agent to reliably distinguish between similar tools without careful reading, leading to frequent misselection.
The naming is largely consistent with a verb_noun pattern (post_to_*, list_*, create_*, delete_*, update_*, manage_*). There are clear families for major operations. A few outliers like 'google_business_account', 'hermoso_capabilities', and 'store_get' break the pattern, but the overwhelming majority follow a predictable structure, making navigation somewhat easier.
293 tools is far beyond any reasonable scope for a single MCP server, even for a comprehensive marketing platform. The calibration guide flags 50+ as an extreme mismatch, and this is nearly six times that threshold. Such a large surface overwhelms context windows, increases the probability of misselection, and makes it impractical for agents to learn or use effectively.
The tool set covers a vast domain: ad creation and rendering, posting across nine+ social channels, analytics and reporting, file management (Drive/OneDrive), competitor research, brand management, and more. It appears to provide CRUD and lifecycle coverage for most resources. While there may be minor gaps given the immense scope, the overall coverage is impressively comprehensive.