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. The description adds context about the purpose of deletion, such as clearing sensitive data and handling stale context, which goes beyond the annotation details without contradicting them.
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 and resource. Every clause contributes value: the purpose, usage scenarios, and tool pairing. No redundancy or irrelevant information.
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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, this description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and its relationship to sibling tools, including the specific use case of clearing sensitive data.
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%, with the single 'key' parameter described as 'Memory key to delete'. The description adds that the memory was 'previously stored' and associates it with remember/recall, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already contains.
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 explicitly states 'Delete a previously stored memory by key', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like remember and recall by being the deletion counterpart.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use conditions: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data...'. Also mentions pairing with remember and recall, giving clear guidance on alternatives and complementary 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.
The set mixes several unrelated domains (LibriVox, Pipeworx data lookup, Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions), and within those domains there is heavy overlap: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research all route to the same 5,798 tools, and polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage/polymarket_edge_tracker/polymarket_fill_risk/bet_research all scan prediction-market opportunities. An agent can easily pick the wrong tool when the same question fits several of them.
Names are mostly lowercase snake_case, but the patterns are inconsistent across domains: some are verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt), some are noun-first (audiobook, tracks, polymarket_edges), and pluralization varies (audiobook vs audiobooks, authors vs tracks). The Pipeworx family is internally consistent, but the overall set has no unified convention.
35 tools is heavy for a server named Librivox, and only 4 of them (audiobook, audiobooks, authors, tracks) actually relate to LibriVox. The remaining ~31 tools (Pipeworx, Polymarket, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility) make the count far exceed what the server name and apparent purpose suggest.
For a LibriVox-focused server, the tool surface is thin: search and fetch audiobooks, search authors, and list tracks, but no browse by genre, no reader/search-by-reader, no language filter, no author detail endpoint. The Pipeworx side is quite comprehensive, but it does not make up for the gap relative to the server's stated identity.