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.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "key": "user_research_topic"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. Description adds context about use cases (clearing sensitive data, stale context) but does not mention permanence or side effects. No contradiction.
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 verb and resource. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.
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 one-parameter delete tool with clear annotations, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and pairing. No output schema needed.
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 parameter 'key' described as 'Memory key to delete'. Description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Description clearly states 'Delete a previously stored memory by key', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning pairing with remember and recall.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'. Also advises pairing with remember and recall, guiding agent on 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.
Most tools have distinct jobs and the descriptions are unusually detailed with cross-references, but there is real overlap in the ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now), the Polymarket edge/arbitrage cluster, and some company-research tools. An agent can usually pick correctly, but only after reading long descriptions carefully.
All names are snake_case and many are clear verb_noun forms like estimate_emissions or list_subscriptions, but the set also contains descriptive noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes, ai_visibility_check), brand-prefixed names (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges), and bare memory verbs (remember, recall, forget). This is a readable but mixed convention rather than one predictable pattern.
34 tools is well above the comfortable ceiling, and the set bundles several unrelated domains: Climatiq emissions, Pipeworx data research, prediction-market analytics, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, llms.txt generation, and npm dependency checks. It feels heavy and redundant, with ask_pipeworx_beta and the AI-visibility pair as candidates for removal or merging.
The core query workflows are well covered: emission factors lead into estimation, general lookups have plain/grounded/deep variants, claim validation and entity profiles exist, and subscriptions/memory have full lifecycles. The main gaps are minor—no batch emissions endpoint or direct order execution—so agents can work around them.