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 declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate them. It adds useful context by specifying what gets deleted (previously stored memories) and a real-world scenario (clearing sensitive data). No contradiction with 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 primary action, and provides usage context without any wasteful words. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter tool with strong annotations and schema coverage. The description covers purpose, usage scenarios, and related tools, making it adequately complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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%, with the key parameter described as 'Memory key to delete.' The description reiterates 'by key' but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states 'Delete a previously stored memory by key,' which is a specific verb (delete), resource (memory), and method (by key). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools 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?
It provides explicit use cases: '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 lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls just 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.
Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer natural-language data questions. The six Polymarket/prediction-market tools also blur together, and ai_visibility_check versus scan_competitor_ai_presence are near-duplicates.
Snake_case is used consistently, and most tools follow a verb-first or domain-prefixed pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, subscribe, polymarket_*). Minor deviations like entity_profile, resource_data, and ai_visibility_check are noun-first, but nothing is chaotic or mixed-cased.
33 tools is excessive for a server named 'Data Gov In' whose actual domain-specific surface is only resource_data and resource_meta. The rest are generic Pipeworx, prediction-market, memory, and utility tools that do not belong to the apparent India open-data scope.
For a data.gov.in server, the surface is severely incomplete: there is no way to search or list datasets/resources, only fetch metadata and data for a known resourceId. The overwhelming majority of tools serve unrelated domains, so an agent using this server for Indian government data will hit dead ends immediately.