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 doesn't need to repeat those. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond deletion, such as reversibility or side effects. Missing detail is minor given the 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 concise, front-loaded sentences. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose, second gives usage guidance. No wasted 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 deletion tool with one parameter and good annotations, the description covers purpose and usage adequately. It does not explain return values or error cases, but these are not critical given the simplicity.
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 described. The description reiterates 'Memory key to delete' which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('memory by key'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'remember' and 'recall'. The action is 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?
The description provides explicit contexts for when to use the tool: when context is stale, task is done, or to clear sensitive data. It also suggests pairing with remember and recall, but does not explicitly list when not to use it.
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 overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questions to the same 5,798-tool catalog and can return similar evidence-backed answers. Additionally, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, and bet_research all circle prediction-market edge detection, creating boundary ambiguity despite detailed descriptions.
Most tools follow a verb_noun or noun_verb pattern (e.g., list_subscriptions, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, compare_entities, resolve_entity), and consistent snake_case is used throughout. However, some names are vague and unclear (query, metadata, recall, forget, datasets), and the ask_pipeworx family is not clearly versioned in naming.
34 tools is heavy for a server that is conceptually a data-access gateway plus a few meta utilities. The count is inflated by multiple near-duplicate research modes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and an extensive prediction-market subfamily that could be consolidated.
The server covers its main domains well: entity resolution, company profiles, comparisons, change feeds, claim verification, grounded Q&A, and data discovery all exist. Minor gaps include no obvious tool for general web search or full-text legal records, and the subscription/alert system lacks an update-subscription tool, but core workflows have no dead ends.