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 declare destructiveHint true and idempotentHint true. The description adds the context that the deletion targets 'a previously stored memory,' but does not provide additional behavioral nuance beyond what annotations cover, such as behavior for non-existent keys.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant or tangential information. Every sentence earns its place.
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 robust annotations (destructive, idempotent) and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose and usage. It is complete 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%; the key parameter is already described as 'Memory key to delete.' The description's 'by key' adds no new meaning beyond the schema, 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a previously stored memory by key.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like remember (store) and recall (retrieve).
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?
It provides explicit use cases: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier.' It also mentions pairing with remember and recall, offering relationship context without explicitly naming alternatives for non-use.
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 have distinct purposes, e.g., geology tools vs. Polymarket tools vs. memory tools. The main ambiguity is between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, but their descriptions clearly differentiate them (grounded vs. casual). Overall, an agent can reliably select the right tool.
Names use snake_case consistently, but the structure varies: some are verb_noun (find_columns), some are noun_noun (entity_profile), some are single verbs (forget). This mix reduces predictability, though each name is still readable.
With 29 tools, the server covers many domains (geology, finance, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). This is a large surface for a server named 'Macrostrat', which implies a geology focus. The count feels bloated for a coherent set, though each tool individually seems justified.
The tool set is quite complete for its diverse sub-areas: geology has lookup tools, Pipeworx/Poly market has search, comparison, arbitrage, and memory/subscriptions have full CRUD. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no detailed geology unit edits), but overall coverage is strong.