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 indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds context beyond those hints by explaining why deletion might be needed (clearing sensitive data, stale context). It does not contradict the annotations.
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, front-loaded with the specific action ('Delete...'), and every clause provides useful guidance (when to use, pairing). There is no filler 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 1-parameter delete tool with strong annotations, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and how it relates to sibling tools. No output schema exists, but return values are less critical for a delete operation. A note about whether deletion is permanent or reversible would be helpful but is not essential given the destructiveHint.
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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'key,' so the description does not need to add detail. It only says 'by key,' which matches the schema. No additional semantics or format guidance are provided, 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a previously stored memory by key.' This clearly differentiates the tool from its siblings 'remember' and 'recall,' which handle writing and retrieving 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 use cases: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data...' It also suggests pairing with remember and recall, which indicates complementary tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, which would push it to a 5.
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_beta currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx, and the five Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, bet_research, fill_risk, edge_tracker) overlap heavily in the 'should I bet on X' use case. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent could easily misselect between these clusters.
Naming is highly inconsistent: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity), noun_noun (entity_profile, table_meta, polymarket_edges), single verbs (remember, forget, recall), and brand-prefixed compounds (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_kalshi_spread) are all mixed together. The server name 'Stat Gl' also doesn't align with the Pipeworx-heavy tool set.
34 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold that signals an oversized surface, and the set spans disparate domains: data querying, prediction markets, entity research, memory, subscriptions, and even niche utilities like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency. While each tool has a described purpose, the count feels bloated for a coherent server.
Within its actual domains, coverage is strong: query, grounded verification, deep research, claim validation, entity profiles, comparisons, memory CRUD, and subscription lifecycle are all present, plus a complete Statistics Greenland browse/schema/query trio. Minor gaps exist (e.g., limited subscription event types, US-centric company profiles), but agents can typically find a working path without dead ends.