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?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the core behavioral traits are covered. The description adds little beyond saying 'delete,' which is redundant with the destructive hint. It does mention 'previously stored memory' and 'clear sensitive data,' but these are more usage-oriented than new behavioral disclosures.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides usage guidance and related tools. Every sentence is useful, with no fluff or repetition.
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 delete tool, the description combined with annotations covers all necessary context: purpose, when to use, related tools, and safety profile. No output schema is needed for explaining return values, and the tool's behavior is fully disclosed through the description and annotations.
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 parameter 'key' with description 'Memory key to delete.' The tool description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Delete a previously stored memory by key.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like remember and recall, which store and retrieve memories 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?
The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier.' It also names related tools ('Pair with remember and recall'), giving clear context on how this tool fits into the overall workflow.
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.
The tool set contains multiple near-duplicate lookups: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded all do the same routing with minor variations, while deep_research and validate_claim also overlap in information retrieval. The two Pixabay search tools are distinct, but the abundance of overlapping data-lookup tools creates real ambiguity.
All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (search_images, validate_claim), others are noun-based (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback), and variants like ask_pipeworx_beta/grounded introduce ad-hoc suffixing. The naming does not follow a single predictable convention.
With 33 tools, the count is far excessive for a Pixabay server. Only 2 tools (search_images, search_videos) actually relate to Pixabay; the remaining 31 are unrelated Pipeworx data, Polymarket, memory, and subscription tools. The scope is a severe mismatch.
For a server named Pixabay, the surface is severely incomplete: only basic image/video search is provided, with no tool for fetching details, downloading, managing collections, or any other lifecycle operation. Meanwhile, the Pipeworx domain is over-covered, but that is irrelevant to the server's stated purpose.