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 context about memory being previously saved and that it clears sensitive data, but doesn't go far beyond the annotation-provided safety profile. No contradiction found.
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?
Three concise sentences: the action, use cases, and related tools. Every sentence contributes, and the description is front-loaded with the primary verb. No waste or 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 one-parameter destructive but idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and relationship to sibling tools. It's nearly complete, though it could optionally mention what happens if the key doesn't exist, but the idempotent hint mitigates that gap.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the key parameter already described as 'Memory key to delete'. The tool description references 'by key' but adds no new semantics or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.
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 a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('memory'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'remember' and 'recall' by defining the delete operation for memory.
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?
It provides explicit when-to-use conditions: when context is stale, task is done, or clearing sensitive data. It also mentions pairing with remember and recall, offering alternatives. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it doesn't fully reach a 5.
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.
Tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and entity_profile have overlapping purposes, causing potential confusion. However, their descriptions provide some differentiation, so an agent can usually pick the right one with careful reading.
Naming is highly inconsistent: mixes verb_noun (ask_pipeworx), noun_verb (reverse_dns), single-word (geoip), and compound phrases (generate_llms_txt). No clear pattern, making it hard for an agent to predict tool names.
44 tools is overwhelmingly high for a single server. The set mixes unrelated domains (network tools, data APIs, memory, prediction markets), suggesting it's a grab bag rather than a focused toolkit.
The server lacks a coherent domain, so evaluating completeness is difficult. There are many lookup tools but few for updates or deletes (except memory). The HackerTarget subset is sparse, and the overall surface feels incomplete for any single purpose.