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 indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context: memories are 'previously stored,' deletion is appropriate for stale/done/sensitive data, and the tool pairs with remember and recall. It could explicitly note irreversibility, but the destructiveHint annotation covers that, and the description's use-case framing adds value beyond the structured fields.
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 three concise sentences. The first fronts the core action (delete by key), the second gives usage conditions, and the third mentions related tools. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter, destructive, idempotent tool. The description covers purpose, when to use, and sibling context. It doesn't explain return values or error behavior, but no output schema exists and the description need not compensate for a trivial operation. The coverage is adequate and slightly enriched by pairing information.
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 has 100% coverage for the single 'key' parameter, described as 'Memory key to delete.' The description repeats 'by key' but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. With full schema coverage, the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a previously stored memory by key.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings remember and recall, positioning it as the deletion counterpart. It also names the key-based mechanism, making the tool's function 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?
The description provides explicit when-to-use conditions: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier.' It also mentions pairing with remember and recall, which helps situate it among alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for non-deletion operations.
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, but some overlap exists (e.g., ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research and ask_pipeworx). The Polymarket tools are numerous but clearly differentiated.
Mixed naming conventions: some tools start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, search_cves), others with nouns (entity_profile, recent_changes). Prefixes (pipeworx_, polymarket_) help but the pattern is not uniform.
33 tools is excessive for a single server, covering too many domains (NVD, Pipeworx, Polymarket, SEC, memory). This reduces coherence and makes it hard for agents to navigate.
Core workflows are covered: CVE lookup, company research, prediction market analysis, and data querying. However, there are minor gaps (e.g., no tool for editing stored data, no CVE metrics beyond search).