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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description's 'Delete' aligns with these annotations but adds no extra behavioral details such as irreversibility or handling of missing keys. It provides minimal added value beyond 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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide usage context. No filler or 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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what it does, when to use it, and how it relates to remember and recall. The annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness, so nothing critical is missing.
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 provides full coverage of the single 'key' parameter with description 'Memory key to delete.' The description's 'by key' simply reiterates the schema. No additional semantics like case-sensitivity or format are provided, so baseline 3 applies.
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.' This provides a specific verb (delete), resource (memory), and mechanism (by key). It distinguishes from siblings like remember and recall by explicitly mentioning them, making its role unambiguous.
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 offers explicit scenarios for when to use: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools for retrieval, so it stops short of a 5, but the guidance is strong.
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 mixes two unrelated domains (Star Wars and Pipeworx data services), which is initially confusing. Within the Pipeworx suite, tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded are clearly differentiated, but some overlap exists (e.g., deep_research vs. compare_entities both do multi-source lookups). Overall, most tools have distinct purposes, but the domain mismatch lowers clarity.
All tools use snake_case consistently (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, resolve_entity). The naming pattern is mostly verb_noun or descriptive_compound, which is predictable. Minor deviation: some tools start with a verb (ask_pipeworx) while others start with a noun (entity_profile), but the style is uniform.
34 tools is on the high side but not unreasonable for a data-heavy server. However, the set covers two distinct domains (Star Wars and Pipeworx), making it feel bloated. The count could be reduced by separating the domains or pruning rarely-used tools.
The Pipeworx side appears comprehensive, covering queries, profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, alerts, and memory. The Star Wars side is incomplete—it lacks tools for vehicles, species, or individual characters (only search_people exists). The overall surface has gaps in one of its two domains.