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?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the key safety behaviors. The description adds little beyond restating the deletion action; it mentions 'previously stored' and 'clear sensitive data' but these are preconditions and use-case rationales rather than new behavioral traits.
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 two sentences, front-loads the action, and every clause serves a purpose. It is efficient without unnecessary detail.
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 single-parameter tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers action, usage conditions, and tool relationships. It is contextually complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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 fully describes the 'key' parameter with 'Memory key to delete' and includes an example. The description adds no new parameter semantics, and with 100% schema coverage, this is sufficient.
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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'memory' with scope 'by key'. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing remember and recall, making its role in the memory trio explicit.
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 explicitly provides usage conditions: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'. It also mentions pairing with remember and recall, indicating related tools.
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.
Several tool groups have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, polymarket_edges/arbitrage/bet_research overlap heavily, and scan_competitor_ai_presence merely wraps ai_visibility_check. An agent would frequently have to guess which of several overlapping tools to call.
Most tools use lowercase snake_case, but the set mixes verb-first names (resolve_entity, validate_claim) with noun/service-first compounds (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending, ai_visibility_check) and inconsistent suffix semantics (ask_pipeworx_beta vs ask_pipeworx_grounded). The pattern is readable but not predictable.
33 tools is far too many for a server named iplookup; only 2 of 33 relate to IP geolocation. The rest form a sprawling data/prediction-market/memory platform that would be better split into multiple focused servers.
Within the actual described scope (a Pipeworx data platform), coverage is strong: routed lookups, grounded verification, deep research, entity identity/profile/comparison, claim validation, discovery, subscriptions, memory, feedback, trending, and a full prediction-market arbitrage suite. Minor gaps exist (no direct pack-listing tool, no update for memory values), but there are no critical dead ends.