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, so the description doesn't need to restate those. However, it adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying what is deleted ('previously stored memory') and the purpose ('clear sensitive data'), which helps the agent understand the nature of the operation.
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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action in the first sentence. It then provides usage guidance in a compact, efficient manner. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or filler.
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 tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description fully covers the necessary context: what it does, when to use it, and how it relates to sibling tools. Nothing important is missing.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description ('Memory key to delete') and example. The description only references 'by key' without adding new semantic detail, so it neither improves nor diminishes what the schema already provides.
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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a previously stored memory by key.' This distinguishes it from siblings like remember and recall, which handle storage and retrieval respectively.
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 guidance: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier.' It also names related tools ('Pair with remember and recall'), offering clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.
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.
Many tools have overlapping or redundant purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical in routing, and several polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) all surface trading opportunities with similar outputs. The three ArcGIS tools are distinct but buried among dozens of unrelated data/meta tools, making selection confusing.
All names use snake_case, which is consistent, but the verb/noun pattern is inconsistent. Some are verb_noun (query_layer, resolve_entity), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_alerts), and some are bare verbs (recall, remember, forget, subscribe). The naming style is readable but not predictably patterned.
34 tools is already high, but the severe issue is that only 3 of them (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info) relate to the server's stated ArcGIS Delaware County purpose. The other 31 are Pipeworx data, memory, subscription, and prediction-market tools, which is a blatant scope mismatch. The tool count is not appropriate for the advertised server domain.
For an ArcGIS Delaware County GIS server, the surface is extremely thin: only search, query, and layer metadata exist. There are no tools for editing features, uploading data, managing layers, or exporting maps. Conversely, the Pipeworx tools form a broad but fragmented domain with many monitoring and meta-tools but no clear end-to-end workflow. The set is severely incomplete for its apparent dual purpose.