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. The description's 'delete' confirms destructiveness but adds little beyond the annotations—just a motivation about sensitive data. It does not detail irreversibility, permissions, or behavior on missing keys, but with annotations covering the core traits, a 3 is appropriate.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and object, then use cases. Every word earns its place; 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and idempotent/destructive annotations, the description provides enough context: what it does, when to use it, and its relationship to sibling tools. It could mention return values or error cases, but those are not critical given the tool's simplicity.
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 provides full coverage of the sole parameter 'key' with description 'Memory key to delete.' The description's phrase 'by key' adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 verb and resource: 'Delete a previously stored memory by key.' It clearly states the operation and the object, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like remember and recall by targeting deletion rather than storage or retrieval.
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 gives explicit use cases ('context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data') and suggests pairing with remember and recall. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative tool for non-deletion cases, so it stops 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.
The set mixes several overlapping clusters: three ask_pipeworx variants (beta is explicitly identical to stable right now), six Polymarket tools with similar opportunity-scanning purposes, and two AI-visibility tools that duplicate each other. However, the descriptions are detailed enough that an agent can usually pick correctly, so the ambiguity is moderate rather than severe.
Tool names follow no single convention — some are verb_noun (query_layer, validate_claim), some noun_noun (entity_profile, layer_info), some company-prefixed clusters (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), and a few standalone verbs (forget, recall). While snake_case is consistent, the absence of a uniform verb_noun pattern across the set makes it unpredictable.
At 34 tools, the server is oversized for its apparent purpose, and the count is even more problematic because most tools belong to a general Pipeworx/data platform while only 3 serve the 'Arcgis Princewilliam' GIS theme. The set feels like two unrelated servers merged, with many tools earning no clear place in a unified product.
The GIS side is a read-only stub (search, schema, and query) with no editing or feature-level retrieval, and the broader Pipeworx side has a notable dead end: tools return pipeworx:// citation URIs but no tool is provided to fetch those resources. The result is a surface that is simultaneously over-built in prediction markets and under-built in its namesake domain.