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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not repeat them. It adds useful context about what is deleted (memory by key) and the motivation for deletion (clearing sensitive data), without contradicting any 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 only two sentences, each earning its place with concrete guidance. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by use cases and related tools, with no 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 1-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, key semantics, and usage scenarios. It could mention return values or error behavior, but the annotations and simplicity make this adequate.
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% for the single 'key' parameter, which is well-documented as 'Memory key to delete'. The description enhances this by noting the key refers to a 'previously stored memory', implying it should exist from a prior remember call.
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 a specific verb 'Delete' with a clear resource 'previously stored memory' and method 'by key'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remember (store) and recall (retrieve).
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use conditions: 'context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'. Also mentions paired tools 'remember and recall', giving related alternatives for context.
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.
The descriptions are extraordinarily detailed and genuinely differentiate most tools, but the set contains near-clones (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta which is explicitly 'identical' to it, and ask_pipeworx_grounded) plus five polymarket tools whose boundaries (arbitrage vs edges vs edge_tracker vs fill_risk vs kalshi_spread) overlap enough to cause misselection. An agent navigating this surface must read full descriptions to choose correctly, which defeats quick tool selection.
Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity), but there are clear deviations: bare single-word verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe), prefix-family names (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending; polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk), and a disjoint ArcGIS trio (layer_info, query_layer, search_datasets) that breaks the dominant convention. It is readable but not predictable across the whole set.
34 tools is far beyond what the 'Arcgis Orovalley' purpose warrants — only 3 tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) actually relate to GIS, with 31 unrelated tools bolted on covering financial data, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and AI visibility. This is a sprawling mega-server where an agent must hold an enormous option set in mind; the surface appears to be several platforms fused together rather than one well-scoped toolset.
The genuine ArcGIS surface (search datasets → layer_info → query_layer) is a complete read-only workflow with no dead ends, and the Pipeworx side is impressively comprehensive (routing, grounded answers, research, entity, compare, resolve, validate, memory, subscriptions, feedback). But the tool set as a whole serves no single coherent domain — the declared purpose (ArcGIS Oro Valley data) lacks any write/editing operations, while the majority of the surface addresses unrelated concerns, so 'complete' only applies to one small slice of the 34 tools.