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?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context (e.g., 'clear sensitive data' implies irreversible deletion), but doesn't disclose additional traits beyond the annotations, such as whether deleting a non-existent key is an error or a no-op (idempotentHint is already set).
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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds value. It is concise and well-structured, avoiding any 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of accurate annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it does, when to use it, and how it relates to siblings. No missing critical 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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'key' with a clear description ('Memory key to delete'). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 action ('Delete a previously stored memory by key') with a specific verb and resource. It distinctively contrasts with sibling tools like remember (store) and recall (retrieve), making the tool's purpose 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 explicitly specifies when to use the tool: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data.' It also suggests pairing with remember and recall, providing useful context, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it. This is strong guidance for a simple tool.
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.
Several tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical in behavior today, while discover_tools and suggest_questions overlap as discovery/onboarding entry points. The Polymarket tools also blur together across arbitrage, edges, edge tracking, and fill risk, making tool selection prone to mistakes despite long descriptions.
Names are consistently lowercase snake_case and readable, but they mix conventions: some are clear verb_noun actions like validate_claim and compare_entities, while others are noun-led like recent_alerts and entity_profile, or domain-prefixed like polymarket_edges and opensensemap_nearby. There is no single predictable naming pattern across the set.
At 34 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold for a heavy tool set, and the tools span several unrelated domains: OpenSenseMap sensors, Pipeworx data access, Polymarket research, memory, subscriptions, and AI visibility. A server named Opensensemap hosting this much unrelated functionality feels poorly scoped.
The OpenSenseMap portion covers nearby discovery, box lookup, and area averages, but lacks historical/time-series access and station lifecycle operations, which are notable gaps for a sensor data server. The broader Pipeworx surface has strong lookup, research, validation, and subscription coverage, so the main incompleteness is in the named domain.