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 provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds usage context but does not discuss idempotency or error behavior beyond what annotations imply.
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?
Two sentences: first states purpose, second provides usage guidance. No redundant 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 one-parameter tool with annotations present, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and sibling pairing.
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% and the description simply echoes the parameter's purpose without adding new semantics. Baseline 3 applies.
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) and resource (previously stored memory by key), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 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?
Explicitly states when to use (context stale, task done, clear sensitive data) and pairs with remember and recall for 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.
Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all handle query routing, and the five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research blur the line between market scanning, edge detection, and fill-risk analysis. Several pairs (entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes, ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence) also overlap substantially.
The tool names mix multiple conventions: verb_noun (validate_gtin, list_subscriptions, generate_llms_txt), brand-prefixed groups (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx*), and bare nouns (entity_profile, recent_alerts). The server is named after GTIN/barcodes, yet most tools are branded Pipeworx or Polymarket, making the set feel incoherently named.
33 tools is well over the threshold where a typical agent can comfortably navigate the surface, especially since they span unrelated domains: barcode validation, data lookups, prediction-market arbitrage, memory storage, subscriptions, npm scanning, and llms.txt generation. The count reflects an overgrown grab bag rather than a well-scoped toolset.
There is no coherent domain to assess completeness against: for the server's apparent GTIN/barcode purpose, only gtin_check_digit and validate_gtin exist (and not even a lookup for product data by GTIN). For the broader Pipeworx platform hinted at by most tools, the surface is scattered, with deep coverage of prediction-market edges but arbitrary one-off utilities elsewhere.