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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. Description only restates deletion without adding behavioral context like effects on non-existent keys or side effects.
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, front-loaded with purpose, no 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 simple delete tool with clear schema and annotations, the description is complete. No output schema needed.
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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Memory key to delete'.
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?
Description clearly states it deletes a memory by key, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'remember' or 'recall', though 'pair with remember and recall' implies its role.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: stale context, task done, clear sensitive data. Also mentions pairing with remember and recall, guiding alternative choices.
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.
The tool set mixes NASA-specific tools with a large number of financial and prediction market tools, causing confusion. Within the non-NASA tools, there is significant overlap (e.g., multiple Polymarket analysis tools, several research tools with vague boundaries).
Most tools use snake_case, but naming patterns are inconsistent: some start with verbs (search_collections, get_collection), others are noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research). There is no uniform verb_noun convention across the set.
With 33 tools, the count is high. Although it may be appropriate for the underlying domain (data/prediction markets), it is excessive for the server's stated NASA focus, where only 3 tools are relevant.
For a server named 'Nasa Cmr', the tool set is severely incomplete: only three tools cover NASA Earth science (search/granules/collections), lacking any support for missions, datasets, or advanced queries. The non-NASA tools are comprehensive but disconnected from the server name.