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 destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds context about clearing sensitive data but does not clarify idempotency behavior or error handling beyond what annotations provide.
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 sentences: first states action, second gives usage guidance and pairing. No wasted words, front-loaded.
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?
Covers purpose, usage context, and sibling relationships. Lacks details on return value or behavior when key does not exist, but acceptable for a simple 1-parameter tool without output schema.
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% with clear parameter description ('Memory key to delete'). Description merely repeats the concept of 'by key' without adding new meaning.
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?
Description states 'Delete a previously stored memory by key' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'Pair with remember and recall'.
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 states when to use: when context is stale, task is done, or to clear sensitive data. Mentions pairing with alternatives (remember, recall) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.
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 clearly distinct purposes, but the set includes three very similar `ask_pipeworx` variants that could cause confusion despite detailed descriptions. The Polymarket and memory tools are well-differentiated.
Names follow a mix of patterns: some `verb_noun` (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), some `noun_noun` (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage), and some standalone nouns (forget, recall). While readable, the inconsistency is notable.
At 33 tools, the server is on the heavy side for typical MCP servers (3-15 ideal). However, the broad scope covering many data domains partially justifies the count.
The tool set covers a wide range of data access and analysis needs, including entity resolution, company profiles, betting analysis, subscriptions, and memory. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for editing entities), but overall it's well-rounded.