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.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description reinforces the destructive nature ('Delete') and adds context about clearing sensitive data, which is helpful but not beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.
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 action, no wasted words. Every sentence provides value: action, usage context, and companion tools.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage triggers, and relationships. Annotations cover the destructive behavior, so no further elaboration needed.
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', with a clear description 'Memory key to delete'. The description does not add additional parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?
The description clearly states the tool deletes a memory by key ('Delete a previously stored memory by key'). It distinguishes from sibling tools 'remember' and 'recall' by explicitly mentioning pairing and contrasting operations.
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 provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'. It also suggests complementary tools ('Pair with remember and recall'), offering clear alternatives.
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 tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route the same 5,702 tools with only subtle differences, and ai_visibility_check is essentially a single-entity subset of scan_competitor_ai_presence. The memory trio (remember/recall/forget) and subscription tools also sit awkwardly alongside the data-query tools, making selection genuinely ambiguous.
Naming mixes verb_noun (validate_cnpj, resolve_entity, compare_entities), noun_verb (bet_research, entity_profile, recent_changes), and bare nouns with inconsistent suffixes (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk). The ask_pipeworx family uses inconsistent qualifiers (beta vs grounded), and validate_* is used for both checksum-only tools and full lookups.
36 tools is excessive for a server ostensibly named 'Latam Validate' — only 5 tools relate to LATAM validation while the rest form a sprawling general-purpose data and prediction-market platform. Many tools could be consolidated (the ask_pipeworx family, the polymarket_* family, the memory trio), suggesting the set is over-scoped for any single agent's typical workflow.
For the stated LATAM validation purpose, coverage is thin: only Brazil (CPF/CNPJ/CEP/banks) and Mexico (CLABE) are covered, with no validators for other LATAM jurisdictions. For the broader Pipeworx data platform, the surface is extensive but has notable gaps — grounded retrieval, claim verification, and arbitrage tools exist, yet many LatAm-specific data sources and common validation formats (RFC, RUT, DNI, CURP) are absent.