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. The description's 'Delete' merely restates this, adding minimal behavioral context beyond the structured data. The mention of clearing sensitive data is more of a usage rationale than a behavioral trait.
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 sentences, no fluff, and the purpose is front-loaded. Every word earns its place, covering purpose, usage context, and related tools efficiently.
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 deletion tool with annotations covering safety, the description fully covers what, when, and how to trigger deletion. No output schema is provided, but none is necessary for a delete operation. Complete in context.
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 key parameter already described as 'Memory key to delete'. The description adds 'by key' but provides no additional semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.
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 deletes a previously stored memory by key, using a specific verb (delete) and resource (memory). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like remember and recall.
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 gives explicit when-to-use conditions (stale context, task done, clearing sensitive data) and mentions pairing with remember and recall. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct alternatives, so it doesn't earn a 5.
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.
There are several clusters of tools with overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to data sources; entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes all provide company research. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent could easily misselect among these near-duplicates, especially since ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now.
Placeholder for naming consistency placeholder
34 tools for a server named Newsapi is an extreme scope mismatch. Only three tools (everything, top_headlines, sources) are news-related; the rest cover data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and package scanning, which belongs in separate servers. The count is also past the 25+ range that feels overloaded for any single purpose.
The three NewsAPI tools themselves cover the standard news surface (top_headlines, everything, sources) with no major gaps. However, the server's stated purpose is diluted by ~30 unrelated tools, and the non-news tools form an incoherent assortment with no clear unified domain to assess completeness against. The mismatch makes completeness hard to reason about and degrades the overall usefulness.