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 declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is a destructive, idempotent operation. The description matches the annotation but adds minimal extra behavioral context, such as permanent deletion or effects of missing keys.
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 two sentences: the first states purpose, the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail.
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 single-key delete tool with strong annotations, the description covers what, when, and how it relates to siblings. No output schema is needed, and the description is fully adequate for agent use.
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?
The schema fully describes the 'key' parameter ('Memory key to delete'), and the description simply echoes 'by key'. With 100% schema coverage, the description provides no additional parameter semantics beyond the baseline.
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 specific verb 'Delete' with resource 'memory' identified by key, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools. It also names 'remember' and 'recall' as counterparts, reinforcing its unique 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?
The description explicitly states when to use (stale context, task done, clear sensitive data) and mentions pairing with remember/recall. It does not explicitly provide exclusions or contrast with alternatives for other operations, but the context is clear.
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 distinct purposes (e.g., entity_profile vs compare_entities), but there is some overlap between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, as well as among polymarket tools, which could cause misselection.
Tool names are inconsistent, mixing verb_noun (list_flows, get_series) with descriptive names (ask_pipeworx, bet_research) and varying conventions (snake_case vs no underscores).
33 tools is on the high side but manageable for a broad platform; however, the server name 'Norges Bank' suggests a narrower scope, making the count feel bloated.
For a server named 'Norges Bank', many tools are irrelevant (polymarket, pipeworx meta-tools, memory, etc.), leaving significant gaps in core Norwegian banking data coverage.