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. The description adds functional context about deletion and use cases but does not disclose additional behavioral nuances beyond the annotations (e.g., behavior on missing key, permanence of deletion). With annotations covering the core safety profile, the description adds moderate value.
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 extremely concise (two sentences) with no redundant or filler content. The first sentence states the core action, the second gives usage context and sibling references. 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?
For a simple tool with one required parameter, clear annotations, and a single action, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage guidance, and relation to siblings. Minor omission: no mention of error handling or idempotency behavior, but overall adequate for the tool's complexity.
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%, so the schema already documents the 'key' parameter and its description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage details for the parameter beyond 'Memory key to delete'. Baseline 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 action 'Delete a previously stored memory by key'. It specifies the resource (memory) and operation (delete/forget). It distinguishes from sibling tools like remember and recall by explicitly naming them and positioning forget as the deletion counterpart.
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 guidance: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'. It also suggests pairing with remember and recall, clarifying when this tool is appropriate vs alternatives.
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 significantly: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded serve nearly identical purposes, and deep_research further duplicates. Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.) also have overlapping scopes, making it hard for an agent to select the correct one without deep inspection.
Tool names use a mix of patterns: some are descriptive phrases (ai_visibility_check, generate_llms_txt), others are domain-prefixed (nz_tender_*, polymarket_*) but lack a uniform verb_noun structure. The ask_pipeworx series diverges from the rest, and verb choices are inconsistent (compare_entities vs scan_competitor_ai_presence).
With 34 tools, the surface is large and feels bloated. The server covers multiple distinct domains (NZ tenders, Polymarket, memory, subscriptions) that could be separate servers. Many tools are variants of the same core functionality (e.g., four ask_pipeworx variants), inflating the count without clear necessity.
For a general-purpose data query server, the tool set covers a broad range of sources (SEC, FDA, FRED, etc.) and includes CRUD for memory and subscriptions. However, obvious gaps exist: no dedicated web search tool (ask_pipeworx is for structured data), and NZ coverage is limited to tenders only. Missing update/delete for some resources (e.g., no way to modify a subscription beyond unsubscribe).