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 indicate destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description aligns by saying 'Delete'. It adds a subtle behavioral trait by noting 'previously stored memory', implying deletion applies only to existing keys. It also adds context about cleaning 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, with the first sentence front-loading the primary action and the second adding usage guidance and complementary tools. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.
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 tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, complementary tools, and the key parameter is fully documented in the schema. No significant gaps remain.
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?
The input schema fully describes the single parameter 'key' with a description and example, so schema coverage is 100%. The description merely repeats 'by key' without adding new meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 tool deletes a previously stored memory by key, using the specific verb 'Delete' with the resource 'memory'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'remember' and 'recall' by positioning itself as the removal operation, and explicitly says 'Pair 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?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'. It also names complementary tools ('remember and recall'), offering clear context for selection among siblings.
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.
Many tools have overlapping or unclear purposes, e.g., multiple entity research tools (entity_profile, recent_changes, compare_entities, validate_claim) and several betting tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_kalshi_spread). The memory tools (remember, recall, forget) and generic lookup tools (ask_pipeworx, discover_tools) further blur boundaries, making it hard for an agent to consistently select the right tool.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some use snake_case verbs (forget, recall, remember), others are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), and many have mixed conventions (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx, bet_research). There is no clear verb_noun structure, and the naming style varies widely across the set.
At 22 tools, the count is within a reasonable range, but the server's stated purpose ('Geoboundaries') is severely mismatched with the actual tool set, which covers data retrieval, betting, memory, and more. The number is not excessive for the breadth of functionality, but it feels bloated for a server that should be focused on geographic boundaries.
The server is named 'Geoboundaries' but only provides two boundary-related tools (get_boundaries, get_geometry). The remaining 20 tools are unrelated, covering general data access, betting arbitrage, and memory operations. This leaves massive gaps for the implied domain (no tools for boundary editing, search by location, or other geographic operations) while over-supplying tools for unrelated tasks.