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. The description confirms deletion and adds rationale (clearing stale/sensitive data), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling or auth requirements. It aligns with annotations without adding significant new information.
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 core action, and includes usage guidance and pairing in a concise manner with no unnecessary words.
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 delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and relationship to siblings. It could mention behavior when key is missing, but overall it provides sufficient context given the tool's simplicity and annotations.
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 single parameter 'key' described as 'Memory key to delete'. The description adds 'by key' but does not provide extra meaning beyond the schema, maintaining baseline value.
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', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'Pair with remember and recall', making the tool's role in the memory system explicit.
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 provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the pairing hint and sibling list help the agent infer context.
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 tool pairs have blurred boundaries: 'ask_pipeworx', 'ask_pipeworx_beta', and 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' serve overlapping routing purposes with minor differences in grounding or versioning, which can confuse an agent. Similarly, 'pipeworx_feedback' and the user feedback mechanism inside other tools lack clear tool-level distinction. Most other tools are distinct but the cluster of ask_pipeworx variants lowers overall clarity.
Tool names largely follow a consistent verb_noun or prefix_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, scan_dependency). Some names like 'bet_research' and 'datasets' deviate from this pattern but remain readable. No chaotic mixing of conventions like camelCase and snake_case is present, so consistency is high overall.
With 34 tools, the count is on the higher side for a single server, yet the tool set covers a broad domain of data access, analysis, and monitoring (data pipelines, prediction markets, compliance scans). Given the variety of distinct capabilities offered, 34 is borderline but not excessive enough to drop to a 2, as each tool addresses a concrete need.
The tool set offers a remarkably complete lifecycle for data operations: discovery (suggest_questions, discover_tools, datasets), entity resolution (resolve_entity, metadata), querying and retrieval (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, query), analysis and comparison (compare_entities, entity_profile, validate_claim), memory (remember, recall, forget), monitoring (subscribe, recent_alerts, polymarket_edge_tracker), and feedback (pipeworx_feedback). Niche tools like bet_research, scan_dependency, and generate_llms_txt further fill domain-specific gaps. No obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.