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 indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds context about clearing sensitive data without contradicting 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with action, no wasted words.
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?
Adequate for a simple tool with one parameter; covers purpose, usage, and sibling relations. Minor omission on behavior for non-existent keys, but idempotentHint mitigates this.
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% for the single parameter 'key,' which is well-described in the schema; the description adds no additional parameter detail beyond the schema.
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 'Delete a previously stored memory by key,' using a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools 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 the tool (stale context, task done, clear sensitive data) and recommends pairing with 'remember' and 'recall.'
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.
The tool set mixes L2beat-specific tools with a large number of unrelated Pipeworx, Polymarket, and other domain tools. While individual descriptions are clear, the overall set forces agents to navigate many irrelevant tools, causing confusion about the server's primary purpose.
Tool names follow inconsistent conventions: snake_case (list_projects), camelCase (ask_pipeworx), and mixed patterns (generate_llms_txt, bet_research). No unified naming pattern exists across the set, reducing predictability.
With 35 tools, the count is far too high for an L2beat server. Only about 5-6 tools are actually related to L2 scaling; the rest are from other domains, making the tool surface bloated and unfocused.
The L2beat-specific tools cover basic operations (list projects, get project, TVS, activity) but lack important features like bridge analysis, project comparisons, or detailed risk breakdowns. The numerous unrelated tools do not address gaps in L2 functionality.