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 indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about the scope (previously stored memory, sensitive data) and relationships with siblings, without contradicting the 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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by usage guidance and sibling reference. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema details.
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 deletion tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage conditions, and relationship to siblings. It doesn't detail error handling for missing keys, but the idempotent annotation partially addresses that, and such detail is not essential for a basic delete.
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 single 'key' parameter with 'Memory key to delete' at 100% coverage. The description's phrase 'by key' doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Delete a previously stored memory by key.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'remember' and 'recall' by specifying the delete operation on memory entries.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data.' It also mentions pairing with 'remember and recall,' providing clear context relative to 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.
Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questions to similar data sources, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. The many polymarket tools also blur together despite detailed descriptions.
Most names are snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern: ask_pipeworx, bet_research, entity_profile, layer_info, pipeworx_trending, recent_changes, and validate_claim follow different stylistic conventions. The pattern is readable but feels like several naming vocabularies were merged.
34 tools is well over the comfortable range and most of them are unrelated to the apparent ArcGIS Johnson City purpose. Only search_datasets, layer_info, and query_layer actually serve GIS needs; the remaining 31 tools form a sprawling Pipeworx meta-platform bolted onto the same server.
The ArcGIS portion covers discover-schema-query reasonably well for read-only open data, and the Pipeworx side has broad coverage with subscriptions, memory, feedback, and research workflows. However, the surface is defined by two unrelated domains, making it hard to judge true completeness for any one stated purpose.