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.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "key": "user_research_topic"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which cover the destructive and idempotent nature. The description adds some context about clearing sensitive data but does not significantly extend behavioral disclosure beyond annotations. No contradiction exists.
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?
Three short sentences: purpose first, then usage scenarios, then related tools. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 destructive tool with clear annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and relationship to sibling tools. Nothing essential 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'key' is described as 'Memory key to delete'. The description repeats 'by key' but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. 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 the action: 'Delete a previously stored memory by key' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on deletion, and later pairs with 'remember and recall' to position itself in the memory lifecycle.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier.' Also mentions complementary tools ('Pair with remember and recall'), making the usage context clear and actionable.
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.
Most tools have distinct names and purposes, but the ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) creates ambiguity as they serve overlapping needs with slight variations. Additionally, the transport tools (get_connections, get_stationboard, search_stations) are clearly distinct from the rest, but the overall set mixes domains, making it harder for an agent to know which tool to pick.
All tool names use snake_case, but there is no consistent pattern: some start with verbs (get_, list_, search_, remember, forget), some with nouns (entity_profile, recent_changes, recent_alerts), and others with adjectives (ai_visibility_check, deep_research). This inconsistency, while not chaotic, makes the set less predictable.
The server name 'swisstransport' implies a narrow Swiss transport focus, but with 34 tools, only 3 are transport-related. The count is vastly inappropriate for the suggested purpose. Even considering the actual broad domain (data query, prediction markets, memory), 34 tools is on the high side and likely overwhelming for any single server.
Inferring the domain from the tool descriptions, the set covers a wide range of capabilities: data query (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), entity comparison (compare_entities), prediction markets (polymarket_*), memory (remember/recall), subscriptions, and more. There are few obvious gaps given the scope; for example, broader financial data is accessible through ask_pipeworx. The transport subset is minimal but present.