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 declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's mention of 'Delete' is consistent but adds little beyond annotations. The description adds the context of clearing sensitive data and pairing with other tools, but does not disclose additional behavior such as what happens if the key is missing.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the action. Every sentence contributes value: purpose, usage, and related tools. There is no fluff or repetition.
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 deletion tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and pairing. The presence of annotations (destructive, idempotent) fills the safety profile. Minor gap: no mention of return value or error behavior, but that is less critical for this tool.
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 description coverage is 100%: the 'key' parameter is described as 'Memory key to delete'. The description does not add extra parameter details beyond the schema, but it does reinforce the meaning by saying 'by key' and providing an example in 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 'Delete a previously stored memory by key', using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like remember and recall by indicating deletion as the action, and provides context about clearing sensitive data.
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 usage conditions: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier.' It also mentions pairing with remember and recall, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative tool for retrieval.
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 clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. Some overlap exists in the Polymarket-related tools, but each has a specific focus (arbitrage detection, edge scanning, persistence tracking, fill risk, cross-venue spread). The two ask_pipeworx variants are similar but differentiated by hallucination resistance.
All tool names use lowercase with underscores, following a consistent pattern of verb_noun or noun_verb. Examples include 'ai_visibility_check', 'bet_research', 'entity_profile', and 'validate_claim'. There are no mixed conventions or erratic naming.
The server is named 'Corporate Apology' but contains 31 tools, only one of which (corporate_apology_generate) relates to apologies. The vast majority are unrelated data retrieval and analysis tools, making the count excessive and poorly scoped for the server's stated purpose.
For a server focused on corporate apologies, the only tool is corporate_apology_generate. There are no tools for analyzing apology impact, managing crisis response, or tracking apologies. The tool surface is severely incomplete relative to the server's name.