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 indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about clearing sensitive data but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
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 concise sentences that front-load the core action and provide context without any unnecessary 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?
The description is sufficient for a simple deletion tool with one parameter and good annotations, though it could mention that calling with a non-existent key is safe (implied by idempotentHint).
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 a clear description for the single parameter. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond 'by key', which is already in the schema.
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 states 'Delete a previously stored memory by key' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings 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?
The description explicitly provides usage scenarios ('when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data') and suggests pairing with remember and recall, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it.
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.
ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly stated to be currently identical to ask_pipeworx, which is a direct duplication. The polymarket cluster (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) has heavily overlapping purposes around finding and validating betting edges, and the ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_grounded / deep_research / validate_claim tools all handle natural-language 'look up X' queries, making misselection likely without reading lengthy descriptions.
snake_case is uniform and helpful prefixes (mbta_, polymarket_, pipeworx_, ask_pipeworx) create recognizable families. However, verb style is inconsistent — imperative verbs like ask/compare/discover/validate mix with noun-first names like bet_research, entity_profile, and search_within, and the memory trio (remember/recall/forget) doesn't share a common prefix.
At 35 tools this exceeds the comfortable range, and the count is inflated by near-duplicates (ask_pipeworx_beta) and a dense 6-tool polymarket family. The server also mixes unrelated domains — only 4 of 35 tools are MBTA transit tools while the rest are Pipeworx data research, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions — making it a kitchen sink rather than a well-scoped set.
The Pipeworx research surface is thorough: query, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, change feeds, claim validation, and subscriptions are all covered with few dead ends. Minor gaps exist — the MBTA portion lacks schedule/line-detail tools beyond departures and alerts, and the AI-visibility feature feels bolted on without deeper integration.