forgetDelete a previously stored memory by key. Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier. Pair with remember and recall.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Memory key to delete |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds a note about clearing 'sensitive data', but otherwise relies on annotations and does not disclose additional behaviors like permanence of deletion or error handling. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is three short sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second gives usage conditions, and the third mentions complementary tools. No fluff or repetition.
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 tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, usage, and tool relationships. It does not specify the return value, but there is no output schema, and a minimal return indication (e.g., success/failure) is not stated, which is a minor gap.
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?
The input schema fully describes the only parameter 'key' as 'Memory key to delete' (100% coverage). The description simply repeats 'by key' and adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a previously stored memory by key'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like remember and recall by being the delete counterpart, explicitly mentioning pairing with them.
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?
The description provides explicit when-to-use conditions: 'context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'. It also mentions pairing with remember and recall, but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name an alternative in a direct 'instead use' manner.
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.
Several tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are documented as functionally identical right now, and polymarket_arbitrage / polymarket_edges / polymarket_edge_tracker all surface trade opportunities with similar outputs. discover_tools and suggest_questions also cover similar 'what can I do' territory.
All names are snake_case and many use verb_noun (query_layer, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt), but a large minority use noun/adjective phrases (layer_info, recent_changes, polymarket_edges, bet_research) or bare verbs (remember, forget, recall). The pattern is readable but not fully predictable.
34 tools is over the 25-tool threshold and deeply mismatched with the server name: only 3 of them (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info) relate to ArcGIS Albuquerque. Most of the surface is a general-purpose Pipeworx data platform, making the set bloated and unfocused.
The advertised ArcGIS domain has only search-schema-query coverage: there is no way to list all datasets, apply spatial filters, or get service-level metadata. The Pipeworx half is feature-rich, but for the server as titled the tool surface has significant gaps and a large amount of irrelevant functionality.