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 provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about clearing sensitive data. However, it does not clarify what happens if the key does not exist, but given idempotent hint, it is acceptable. Overall, it adds value beyond 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes usage guidance and sibling references. Every sentence is valuable and there is no redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and behavioral aspects. It could mention the return value or behavior on missing keys, but annotations fill some gaps. Minor gaps prevent a perfect score.
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 description of the 'key' parameter. The description repeats 'by key' but does not add significant new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter well.
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 action 'Delete a previously stored memory by key' and specifies the resource as 'memory'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning pairing with 'remember' and 'recall', making its purpose unambiguous.
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 lists scenarios for using the tool: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'. It also references sibling tools 'remember' and 'recall', providing clear guidance on when to use 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.
Several research tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all route to the same underlying catalog. Similarly, bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, and polymarket_kalshi_spread form a dense prediction-market cluster with fuzzy boundaries. The few Calendly tools are distinct, but they are drowned out by duplicative families.
Most names use snake_case and a noun-based pattern (e.g. polymarket_edges, entity_profile), and several follow verb_noun (list_event_types, list_scheduled_events, resolve_entity). But there are standalone verbs (forget, recall, subscribe) and inconsistent verb styles (ask_ vs list_ vs scan_), so the pattern is readable but not predictable.
36 tools is far too many for a server ostensibly named Calendly: only 5 tools relate to Calendly events and invitees, while 31 tools belong to an unrelated Pipeworx data-research platform. The count is bloated by a second domain bolted onto the server, making the surface hard to navigate for its apparent purpose.
For the Calendly domain implied by the server name, the surface is missing core operations: there is no create/update/cancel/delete event, no cancel or reschedule flow, no invitee management beyond listing, and no event-type creation or editing. The Pipeworx side is broader, but even it has gaps like no bulk data export or direct raw-tool invocation.