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. Description adds 'delete' and 'previously stored' but doesn't elaborate on error behavior or permanence. Minimal additional value beyond annotations.
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 efficient sentences. First states core action, second provides usage guidelines. No 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?
For a simple single-parameter deletion tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and sibling tools. Complete for its complexity.
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% and schema already describes the 'key' parameter. Description does not add any extra detail about key format, constraints, or behavior.
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?
Clear verb-resource pair: 'Delete a previously stored memory by key'. Immediately distinguishes from siblings like 'remember' and 'recall' which are store and retrieve respectively.
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?
Explicit when-to-use: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'. Also names complementary tools 'remember and recall'.
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 there is some overlap, especially among ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, ask_pipeworx_beta) and prediction market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, bet_research). While descriptions help distinguish them, the boundaries are somewhat fuzzy.
Naming conventions are inconsistent. Some tools use verb_noun (search_sequence, compare_entities), others use noun_verb (entity_profile, recent_changes), and some have prefixes (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending) while others do not (remember, forget). There is no uniform pattern, which reduces predictability.
The server name 'Oeis' suggests a focus on integer sequences, but only 2 of 33 tools are OEIS-related. The remaining tools cover a vast array of unrelated domains (data retrieval, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). This mismatch between name and scope makes the tool count feel excessive and poorly scoped.
Within the broad domains covered, the tool surface is quite complete. For memory, there are remember/recall/forget; for subscriptions, subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions/recent_alerts; for data retrieval, multiple entry points. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of OEIS sequence contribution tools, but overall the set is well-rounded.