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 convey destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Delete' matches this. It adds context about clearing sensitive data, which is useful, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral details like behavior on missing keys. Since annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate.
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, then usage context and pairing. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 single-parameter delete tool with strong annotations, the description is complete: purpose, usage triggers, and related tools are all covered. No output schema exists, but the description's scope is sufficient as the tool's behavior is fully contextualized.
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 has 100% coverage with 'key' described as 'Memory key to delete', so the description adds no extra parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is warranted as the schema carries the full explanatory burden.
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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'previously stored memory by key', which precisely defines the tool's function. It also distinguishes from siblings like remember and recall by focusing on deletion.
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 when-to-use guidance: stale context, task completion, or clearing sensitive data. It also recommends pairing with remember and recall, signaling related tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Most tools are distinctly named and the descriptions are unusually specific, but the set contains overlapping families: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same underlying data, and the beta variant is currently an exact duplicate. The entity/company lookup, AI-visibility, and Polymarket clusters also require reading the long descriptions to choose correctly.
All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, with useful prefixes like ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, and pipeworx_. However the macro pattern is mixed: many are verb-first (compare_entities, resolve_entity), many are noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edge_tracker, recent_alerts), and one puts the verb last (linkedin_humblebrag_generate).
32 tools is far too many for a server whose apparent name and stated LinkedIn-humblebrag purpose are served by exactly one tool. Even viewed as a general Pipeworx/research utility, the surface is bloated: duplicate ask variants, multiple meta-tools, and a sprawling prediction-market family push the count well past the 25-tool threshold.
For the domain implied by the server name, the surface is severely incomplete: only generation exists, with no way to list, edit, delete, publish, or manage LinkedIn-humblebrag posts. The de facto Pipeworx research domain is much better covered, but the overall set has serious dead ends because the one LinkedIn tool is isolated and the core tools are oriented toward a different, unrelated workflow.