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, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that it deletes 'previously stored memory' and mentions clearing sensitive data, but does not disclose behavior like handling non-existent keys or side effects. The criteria say to credit added context; this adds minimal but non-contradictory context.
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 two sentences: the first defines the action clearly, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, information is front-loaded.
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 delete tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose and usage well. It lacks mention of return values, but no output schema exists and the tool is straightforward.
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 has 100% coverage with a description for key and an example. The tool description only repeats 'by key' without adding semantic detail, so 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 clearly states 'Delete a previously stored memory by key,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remember and recall by explicitly mentioning them as counterparts.
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 explicit usage conditions: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data...' and references remember/recall. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name a specific alternative, so it falls short of a 5.
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 are very similar (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and serve the same purpose with slight variations, making it hard for an agent to choose correctly. Additionally, the tool set mixes completely unrelated domains (ArcGIS geospatial vs. Pipeworx/Polymarket data), further confusing the purpose of each tool.
Tool names follow multiple conventions: ask_pipeworx uses snake_case, while layer_info and query_layer use snake_case as well but with a different pattern. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set; some are descriptive (validate_claim) while others are vague (process, run). The mix of conventions and lack of a unified naming scheme hurts predictability.
At 34 tools, the count is excessive for a server supposedly focused on ArcGIS Peoria. Only 3 tools (layer_info, query_layer, search_datasets) are actually related to geospatial data, while the other 31 are from external services (Pipeworx, Polymarket). This mismatch suggests the server is extremely poorly scoped.
For a geospatial server, the tool set is severely incomplete. It lacks basic GIS operations like spatial filtering, editing, or analysis. The three geospatial tools only provide schema discovery and simple attribute queries. Meanwhile, the bulk of the tools cover a completely different domain (data lookup, prediction markets), leaving the core domain almost entirely unaddressed.