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 declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows the safety profile. The description adds practical usage context but no additional behavioral details beyond what annotations imply (e.g., no mention of permanence or return values). It does not contradict 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: action, when to use, and related tools. There is no redundancy or fluff.
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, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and connects to siblings. Annotations cover destructive/idempotent behavior, so no critical information is missing.
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 schema description covers 100% of the parameter ('Memory key to delete'). The description repeats this without adding new meaning about key format or usage. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter information.
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.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of pairing with 'remember and recall' distinguishes it from sibling 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 usage contexts: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data.' It also references sibling tools ('Pair with remember and recall'), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool. This is clear but not fully exhaustive.
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 overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical, and deep_research also overlaps with them. The Polymarket tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also have fuzzy boundaries. An agent could easily pick the wrong meta-tool or duplicate functionality.
All names are snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb_noun (get_item, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity), some are noun_noun (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges), some are adjective_noun (deep_research, recent_alerts), and a few are single verbs (forget, recall, remember, subscribe). This is readable but not a consistent convention.
With 36 tools, this is far too many for a server named 'hackernews'. The bulk of the tools concern Pipeworx data research, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions — unrelated to the server's apparent purpose. Many of these could be split into separate servers, and the HN-specific functionality would be better served by a focused set of ~5-8 tools.
For the Hacker News domain implied by the server name, the surface is incomplete: there are read-only tools (search, top stories, item/comments) but no write functionality (submit, comment, vote) and no user profile access. The broader data-research capabilities are fairly comprehensive, but that does not rescue the server's coherence given its stated name.