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 idempotentHint=true. Description confirms destructive action but adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., no mention of undo, permissions, or impact).
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 sentences, first sentence is the core action. Efficiently conveys purpose, usage, and pairing. No superfluous content.
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?
Given simple 1-param tool with no output schema and clear annotations, description covers purpose, usage, and pairing. Adequate for the tool's complexity.
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% with description for 'key' parameter. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema's 'Memory key to delete'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Delete' and resource 'previously stored memory by key'. Distinguishes from sibling tools 'remember' and 'recall' by specifying deletion action.
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: when context is stale, task is done, or to clear sensitive data. Also advises pairing with remember and recall, providing clear context for tool selection.
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 detailed, carve-out descriptions, but ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded share the same routing core, with the beta version currently identical to the stable one. The Polymarket and company-research clusters are better differentiated, but the number of overlapping research/query entry points still creates real selection risk.
The set is consistently snake_case and has coherent prefixes like ask_pipeworx_ and polymarket_, but it mixes verb_noun names (resolve_entity, scan_dependency, discover_tools) with noun-phrase names (entity_profile, bet_research, recent_changes) and one-word verbs (remember, recall, forget). The naming is readable but does not follow one predictable pattern.
With 32 tools, the server exceeds the 25+ threshold for too many tools and feels like a broad platform dump rather than a focused toolkit. Several utility, memory, and meta-discovery tools could reasonably live in separate servers, and the Insee name makes the breadth especially unfocused.
For the broad data-research platform it actually exposes, the coverage is strong: general lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, company profiles, comparisons, change feeds, subscriptions, and memory all have working lifecycles. The main gap is that some unrelated utilities like scan_dependency and generate_llms_txt feel tacked on rather than part of a missing core workflow.