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 only needs to add context beyond that. It adds usage context (stale context, sensitive data) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling or irreversibility. This is adequate given annotation coverage, 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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, no wasted words. Each sentence adds value: action, usage scenarios, and sibling pairing. Perfectly concise structure.
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 delete tool with no output schema and good annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how it relates to siblings. Nothing essential is missing.
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 described as 'Memory key to delete'). The description reinforces 'by key' but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 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 the specific verb 'Delete' with a clear resource ('a previously stored memory') and mechanism ('by key'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'remember' (store) and 'recall' (retrieve), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 states when to use the tool ('when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data') and mentions pairing with 'remember and recall,' providing clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.
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 clearly distinct purposes with detailed usage guidance, but the several query entry points (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) overlap conceptually and require careful reading to select correctly. Notably, ask_pipeworx_beta currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx, which could cause confusion.
Tool names mix verb-first (remember, resolve_entity) and noun-first (entity_profile, deep_research) patterns, with some using prefixes like 'polymarket_' or 'ask_pipeworx'. While all are snake_case and readable, the lack of a single consistent convention makes the set feel less coherent than it could be.
33 tools is on the high end for a single server, though the broad domain (data retrieval, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, web scraping) justifies much of the sprawl. Still, the count borders on heavy, and some tools could potentially be consolidated (e.g., the ask_pipeworx variants).
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for its core data querying and analysis domain, with lifecycle coverage for memory and subscriptions. Minor gaps exist, such as no generic 'fetch page content' tool despite having get_metadata and take_screenshot, but these do not undermine the primary functionality.