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 declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces 'Delete' and adds context about clearing sensitive data, but it does not disclose behavior such as what happens when the key does not exist—though idempotentHint covers that implicitly. Some value added beyond annotations, but not substantial.
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 three sentences: it states the action, specifies when to use it, and relates it to sibling tools. Every sentence earns its place, is front-loaded with the verb 'Delete', and there is no fluff 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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: the schema covers the key, annotations cover destructive and idempotent behavior, and the description explains purpose and usage clearly. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 single 'key' parameter as 'Memory key to delete', achieving 100% coverage. The tool description merely says 'by key', which adds no additional semantic value. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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 opens with 'Delete a previously stored memory by key' using a specific verb (delete), resource (memory), and method (by key). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like remember (store) and recall (retrieve), making its function unmistakable.
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?
Explicit 'Use when' scenarios are provided (stale context, task done, clearing sensitive data), which gives clear guidance on when to invoke the tool. Also mentions pairing with remember and recall to situate it in the memory workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context is clear for this simple memory operation.
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.
Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, and ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all serve natural-language question answering. The JSONPlaceholder get_* tools are distinct but introduce an unrelated domain, making tool selection ambiguous in practice.
All names use lowercase snake_case, which is a consistent style, but there's no uniform verb_noun pattern. Tools mix action-first names (get_posts, remember, resolve_entity) with noun-oriented names (entity_profile, deep_research, pipeworx_trending). The naming is readable but not highly predictable.
35 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. The set includes a full suite of Pipeworx/Polymarket tools plus a separate JSONPlaceholder demo namespace, making the server feel bloated and unfocused. Many meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_trending) could be consolidated.
The server's name and the get_posts/get_post/get_comments/get_users tools suggest a JSONPlaceholder fake API, but CRUD operations are missing: there's no create, update, or delete for posts, comments, or users, and no todos, albums, or photos. The unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket tools don't address this core domain gap.