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.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "key": "user_research_topic"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the scope 'previously stored memory' and clarifies it targets data 'the agent saved earlier,' but it does not disclose permanence, error behavior (e.g., missing key), or any side effects beyond what annotations convey.
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 three concise sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action, giving usage scenarios, and linking to related tools. It is front-loaded with the core function and avoids redundancy.
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 1-parameter destructive tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and relationships. It lacks explicit notes about irreversibility or behavior on nonexistent keys, but these are partially covered by idempotentHint and the tool's simplicity. Overall it is sufficiently complete.
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%: the only parameter 'key' is described as 'Memory key to delete.' The description's 'by key' and 'previously stored memory' add minimal context but do not elaborate on key format, where to find keys, or any additional constraints beyond the schema.
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's function: 'Delete a previously stored memory by key.' It specifies the verb (delete), resource (memory), and identifier (key). The note 'Pair with remember and recall' distinguishes it from sibling memory tools.
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 gives explicit use cases: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier.' It also names companion tools (remember, recall) but does not explicitly say when to use those over forget, nor does it state any exclusions.
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.
The set mixes several overlapping query surfaces: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research/discover_tools/suggest_questions all serve related retrieval/discovery purposes, and the five polymarket_* tools have similar opportunity-finding goals. Only the unusually detailed descriptions save some tools from misselection; an agent would struggle to quickly pick the right one.
Names are uniformly snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun or prefixed_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, polymarket_edges, scan_dependency). Minor inconsistencies exist — bare nouns like gene/variant/search sit alongside compound names like generate_llms_txt, and the pipeworx_ prefix isn't applied to ask_pipeworx/deep_research — but the overall style is recognizable and predictable.
36 tools is too many for a coherent server, especially since the domains are largely unrelated: 5 gnomAD genomics tools, 20+ Pipeworx/Polymarket data tools, memory CRUD, subscription management, and a couple of web-dev utilities. The count doesn't align with a single obvious scope and would overwhelm an agent selecting among them.
Within the major subdomains coverage is strong: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have full lifecycle tools, and Polymarket has edge detection plus fill-risk checking. However, there are notable gaps — no tool to fetch a pipeworx:// citation URI despite deep_research promising resolvable citations, and the gnomAD surface lacks batch queries, coverage, or constraint data for a server named Gnomad.