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?
The description confirms the destructive nature but relies heavily on annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) for the safety profile. It adds usage context but no additional behavioral details like error handling or return behavior. With annotations covering the key trait, this is adequate but not rich.
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: the first states the action, the second provides usage guidance and sibling references. No fluff or redundancy, front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage, and pairs with related tools. It could mention idempotent behavior if key is missing, but the annotations already handle that, so the description suffices.
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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear parameter name and description ('Memory key to delete') plus an example. The description's phrase 'by key' adds no new semantic information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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's function with a specific verb ('Delete'), resource ('memory'), and mechanism ('by key'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like remember and recall by focusing on deletion, which is unambiguous and unique.
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?
Explicitly provides when-to-use scenarios ('context is stale, task is done, clear sensitive data') and references siblings with 'Pair with remember and recall.' This helps the agent choose the correct tool among the memory-related siblings.
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, with clear descriptions differentiating similar ones like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded. A few overlaps exist (multiple Polymarket analysis tools), but descriptions sufficiently resolve ambiguity.
Tool naming is inconsistent, mixing descriptive phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edges) with verb-object patterns (generate_llms_txt, search). No strong convention is followed, and the 'polymarket_' prefix is applied to some betting tools but not others.
32 tools is high but not extreme. However, the scope is too broad for a single server, covering data queries, betting, memory, NYPL, and more, making the set feel bloated and unfocused.
The domain is unclear due to mixed tools, but within the NYPL subset there are clear gaps (only search and item, no CRUD). For the other domains, coverage is uneven and lacks clear lifecycle completeness.