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 cover destructiveHint (true) and idempotentHint (true), so the safety profile is known. The description adds usage context but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey, such as irreversibility or error behavior.
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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: action, usage, and related tools. No redundant words, front-loaded with the primary operation.
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?
The tool is simple with one required parameter, annotations cover destructive and idempotent behavior, and the description provides purpose and usage. No output schema needed; the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 description coverage is 100% with a clear description 'Memory key to delete' and an example. The description repeats 'by key' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 'Delete a previously stored memory by key', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly positioning itself as the memory deletion counterpart to 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?
The description provides explicit usage scenarios ('context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'), giving clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but mentions pairing with 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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are nearly identical, several prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) cover similar territory, and research/verification tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) blur together. The three sanctions tools are distinct, but the rest of the set creates frequent misselection risk.
All tool names use snake_case, which is consistent, but the verb/noun ordering varies unpredictably (expectation vs entity_profile vs sanctions_screen vs scan_dependency). There is no dominant pattern like verb_noun, though names are readable.
With 34 tools, the server is over-scoped, especially given its narrow 'Sanctions Screening' title. Many tools are duplicative (ask_pipeworx_beta duplicates ask_pipeworx; scan_competitor_ai_presence wraps ai_visibility_check), and the bulk are unrelated to the stated purpose. The count feels bloated.
The three sanctions tools (screen, entry, lists) cover the core read-only workflow well, but the server is mislabeled: most of the 34 tools are generic data/Pipeworx features unrelated to sanctions. For the broad data domain the set is fairly complete, but for the apparent 'Sanctions Screening' purpose it is both over- and under-scoped, with no bulk screening or list management.