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, so the description's 'Delete' is consistent and adds no new behavioral traits. The phrase 'clear sensitive data' offers a bit of context, but the description does not disclose what happens if the key does not exist or whether deletion is permanent. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.
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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second gives usage context, and the third places it among sibling tools. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and free of 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 tool with a single parameter, clear annotations (destructive, idempotent), and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, when to use it, and how it relates to remember/recall. It does not explain error behavior, but given the low complexity and annotation coverage, it is reasonably complete.
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 already describes the only parameter 'key' as 'Memory key to delete,' and schema coverage is 100%. The description simply says 'by key,' adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.
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's function: 'Delete a previously stored memory by key.' It uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('previously stored memory'), and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by mentioning 'Pair with remember and recall.' This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 the tool: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier.' It also acknowledges the related tools 'remember' and 'recall,' helping the agent choose between them. This goes well beyond a simple definition.
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, especially the ask_pipeworx family (4 variants) and polymarket tools (5 variants). The memory tools (remember/recall/forget) and subscription tools also overlap with each other. While descriptions provide some differentiation, the sheer number of similar tools makes it hard for an agent to quickly distinguish the right one.
Most names use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern. Some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity), some are noun_noun (bet_research, entity_profile), and others are adjective_noun (recent_changes, pipeworx_trending). The naming is arbitrary and doesn't follow a predictable convention.
At 33 tools, the count is high but not extreme for a broad data platform. However, the server is named 'mathjs', implying a math focus, yet only 2 tools (evaluate, convert_units) are math-related. The vast majority of tools belong to a completely different domain (data lookups, prediction markets, subscriptions), making the count inappropriate for the server's apparent purpose.
For a math server, the tool surface is severely incomplete—missing basic operations like plotting, equation solving, calculus, etc. For the actual data integration and prediction market functionality, the set is more complete, but the server name misleads. The mismatch between name and content makes the completeness score very low based on the implied domain.