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, covering the core behavioral traits. The description adds usage context but no additional behavioral details (e.g., irreversibility, behavior for missing keys), so it adds marginal 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, front-loaded with the action, and includes only essential usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose, with 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 tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and complementary tools. It lacks edge-case behavior like missing-key handling, but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity and annotation support.
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 schema has 100% coverage for the single 'key' parameter, with a description 'Memory key to delete'. The tool description mirrors this by saying 'by key' without adding new constraints, formats, or examples, so it does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.
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' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by naming complementary tools 'remember' and 'recall', making its role in the memory toolkit obvious.
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 guidance on when to use: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'. It also pairs with 'remember and recall', but it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, so it lacks exclusions.
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 tool set has significant overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical variants, and deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and validate_claim all retrieve structured data with overlapping capabilities. The five Polymarket-oriented tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) further blur boundaries. Agents will struggle to select the right tool without reading very long descriptions.
Most tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, validate_claim), and the polymarket_* cluster is consistently prefixed. However, a few tools are bare nouns (feature, support, search) and the remember/forget/recall trio deviates from the dominant pattern, creating minor inconsistency.
35 tools is excessive for a server named 'Caniuse' — only 4 tools actually pertain to browser compatibility (feature, support, search, list_browsers), while 31 are Pipeworx data tools. The server name misrepresents the content, and the sheer number overwhelms rather than scopes the surface.
For the caniuse domain, coverage is complete (search, feature, support, list_browsers). The Pipeworx side includes meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions), retrieval, memory, subscriptions, and feedback, but some tools require accounts and there are gaps like no direct way to list all data sources without discover_tools. The overall surface is broad but lacks obvious missing operations for any single coherent domain.