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 provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds context about clearing sensitive data and confirms deletion behavior. It does not elaborate on error handling or edge cases, but the annotations handle the core safety profile, so a 4 is appropriate.
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 extremely concise with no wasted words: three sentences covering purpose, usage, and sibling pairing. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.
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 delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, when to use, and relationships to siblings. No gaps are evident.
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 the parameter 'key' described as 'Memory key to delete'. The description merely mentions 'by key', adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.
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 'Delete a previously stored memory by key,' using the verb 'delete' and resource 'memory' with a specific method 'by key'. It explicitly pairs with siblings 'remember' and 'recall', distinguishing its role clearly.
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 use cases: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier.' It also instructs to pair with siblings, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. 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.
Multiple research/query entry points overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research sit on the same routing core, and validate_claim/bet_research/entity_profile all wrap lookup-and-analyze behavior. The detailed descriptions help within specialized clusters, but the central ask_pipeworx family alone creates real selection ambiguity.
All names are lower_snake_case and several families are consistent (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, remember/recall/forget), but the overall set mixes bare verbs, nouns, and verb_noun composites with no global pattern (disease, metadata, query, entity_profile, generate_llms_txt, validate_claim). It is readable but not predictable across the full 34-tool surface.
34 tools is over the 25+ threshold and the set bundles several distinct domains—disease ontology, Pipeworx data access, prediction markets, AI visibility, npm scanning, memory, and subscriptions—into one server. Each subfamily may be justified, but the combined surface is heavy and makes tool selection harder than the underlying tasks require.
The disease domain has query/disease/metadata for search-and-fetch read coverage, and the broader research side has lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, and memory lifecycle tools. Minor gaps exist (no direct tool to fetch pipeworx:// citation URIs, no disease browsing/pagination), but these are workable rather than blocking.