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 / examples[
{
"key": "user_research_topic"
}
]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate readOnly false, destructive true, and idempotent true. The description aligns with these (delete/destructive) and adds context about 'previously stored' and 'sensitive data', but it does not disclose behaviors like what happens if the key doesn't exist or whether deletion is permanent. Since annotations cover the core safety profile, the description adds limited extra value.
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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It uses three short sentences, each adding relevant information: purpose, usage conditions, and related tools. 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?
For a simple one-parameter deletion tool, the description provides enough context: what it does, when to use it, and related tools. It doesn't detail return values, but there is no output schema, and the destructive annotation handles the main risk. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly state that deletion is irreversible, though this is implied.
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%, with the parameter 'key' already described as 'Memory key to delete'. The description doesn't add additional parameter semantics beyond echoing 'by key'. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameter fully.
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 action ('Delete a previously stored memory by key') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remember and recall by focusing on deletion, and the phrase 'previously stored' clarifies the target.
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 provides when to use the tool: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'. It also mentions pairing with remember and recall, effectively guiding the agent on related tools without overcomplicating.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) and several tools serve similar data-retrieval functions, making it difficult for an agent to distinguish which to use.
Tool names mostly follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., geocode_forward, generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity). A few less descriptive names (forget, recall) exist but overall naming is predictable.
38 tools is far too many for a server branded as 'Mapbox'. Only about 8 tools directly relate to map/geospatial functionality; the rest are unrelated (Pipeworx data, Polymarket, memory). The scope is dramatically overextended.
The Mapbox-specific tools lack coverage of major features like style management, tilesets, or data upload. The non-Mapbox tools cover their domains moderately, but the server's overall completeness for its named purpose (Mapbox) is severely lacking.