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, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what's in the annotations; it simply states the delete action without additional context like irreversibility or side effects.
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: first sentence states the core action, second provides usage context. 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?
Given the simple tool with one fully documented parameter and clear annotations, the description is complete: it explains what it does, when to use it, and how it relates to siblings.
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 a single parameter described as 'Memory key to delete.' The description does not add any further semantic meaning, 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 explicitly states 'Delete a previously stored memory by key,' which is a specific verb and resource. It 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?
The description provides clear usage guidelines: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier.' It also mentions related tools.
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.
Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, ai_visibility_check overlaps with scan_competitor_ai_presence, and the six Polymarket tools all orbit the same edge-detection concept. Descriptions are detailed, but an agent would frequently have to read long text to decide which near-overlapping tool to call.
Naming is mostly snake_case but semantically inconsistent: some names are verb-led (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, remember), some noun-led (polymarket_edges, entity_profile), and some use a vendor prefix (scrapingdog_scrape, scrapingdog_amazon_product). The polymarket_edges vs polymarket_edge_tracker singular/plural pairing adds further confusion.
34 tools is above the 25+ threshold and the count is not justified by a single clear purpose. The server is named Scrapingdog but most tools are unrelated Pipeworx research, memory, subscription, and prediction-market functionality, making the set feel overstuffed and unfocused.
The data-research and subscription/memory lifecycles are fairly complete, with create/read/delete coverage for those areas. However, relative to the Scrapingdog scraping identity, the surface is thin: only three scraping tools exist, and there is no direct way to fetch a Pipeworx record by URI or manage scraped-data artifacts.