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, and the description's 'Delete' matches this. The description adds use cases like clearing sensitive data but no additional behavioral details beyond annotations; no contradiction.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action in the first sentence followed by concise usage guidance. Every word earns its place, no 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 deletion tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description fully covers purpose, usage scenarios, and sibling relationships. No output schema is needed, so 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?
The input schema fully documents the required 'key' parameter with type and description 'Memory key to delete' (100% coverage). The description only adds 'by key' and 'previously stored', which does not materially enhance the schema's meaning.
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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' and identifies the resource as 'a previously stored memory by key', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like remember and recall which store/retrieve memories. The scope is unambiguous.
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: 'context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'. It also names related tools ('Pair with remember and recall'), giving clear integration context and sibling differentiation.
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.
Many tools serve overlapping purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research, compare_entities, entity_profile, recent_changes, validate_claim) all querying Pipeworx data with similar outcomes. An agent would struggle to choose correctly without deep understanding of nuanced differences.
Naming conventions are mixed: snake_case (ask_pipeworx, get_anime), camelCase (generate_llms_txt, pipeworx_feedback), and compound names (polymarket_arbitrage, ai_visibility_check). No consistent pattern across the tool set.
34 tools is excessive for a single server. Many are meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions) or narrowly focused (pipeworx_trending, scan_dependency). The server tries to cover too many domains (anime, financial data, predictions, memory) in one surface.
The anime tools (search, get, top) form a reasonable read-only surface. The Pipeworx query tools are comprehensive but lack obvious data management tools (e.g., listing sources, managing credentials). Memory tools (remember/recall/forget) are isolated. Overall, gaps exist but core workflows are covered.