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 indicate destructiveHint=true, and description confirms destructive nature (delete). Adds context about clearing sensitive data and stale context, providing extra behavioral insight beyond 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?
Three short sentences with no fluff, efficiently conveying purpose, usage, and sibling tools.
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 parameter, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and context, leaving no gaps.
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 covers the single parameter 'key' with description 'Memory key to delete' (100% coverage). Description only reiterates 'by key' without adding new detail, so baseline score 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?
Description clearly states 'Delete a previously stored memory by key.' with specific verb, resource, and method, distinguishing it from siblings 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 (stale context, task done, clear sensitive data) and mentions pairing with remember and recall, providing clear guidance on 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.
Most tools have distinct purposes despite overlapping domains like prediction markets, but detailed descriptions help agents differentiate. A few tools like `ask_pipeworx` and `deep_research` could be confused without careful reading.
Naming patterns are inconsistent, mixing `ask_`, `polymarket_`, `scan_`, `recent_`, `entity_`, etc., with no unifying convention. The server name 'Hash' mismatches the tool set entirely.
32 tools is on the high side for a focused server, but the set covers many areas. The count is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, yet each tool has a clear purpose.
The tool set feels like a collection of unrelated utilities rather than a coherent domain. Core hashing functionality is minimal, while other areas like prediction markets are over-represented with gaps elsewhere.