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 and idempotentHint=true. The description adds some context about clearing 'sensitive data' and pairing with memory tools, but does not add significant behavioral details beyond what annotations convey.
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, with the main action front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds usage context efficiently without redundancy.
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 with annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It includes when to use and related tools, making the description complete.
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%, and the parameter description 'Memory key to delete' is clear. The tool description reinforces the 'key' parameter but does not add additional meaning or syntax beyond the schema.
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.' This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'remember' and 'recall' by indicating a destructive delete operation.
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 context on when to use the tool: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data.' It also pairs with 'remember and recall,' but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives beyond these siblings.
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 serve overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, and suggest_questions all handle question-answering, with beta currently identical to the main router. The Polymarket family has six distinct but related tools, and descriptions are detailed enough to differentiate, but an agent could still misselect when the boundaries are subtle.
All tool names use snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: some start with verbs (resolve_entity, validate_claim), while many are noun phrases (entity_profile, bet_research, polymarket_edges). This is readable but not a consistent verb_noun convention, and the repeated ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* prefixes add some structure.
At 33 tools, the surface is heavy for an agent to navigate. While the server covers a broad data-research and prediction-market domain, the count exceeds what is typically manageable, and several tools (ask_pipeworx_beta, discover_tools) could be collapsed or merged without losing core capability.
The tool set covers the domain well: querying, grounded verification, entity profiles, comparisons, prediction-market analysis, subscriptions, memory, and onboarding. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to fetch a full SEC filing body directly, relying on ask_pipeworx routing), but there are no obvious dead ends for the stated purposes.