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 provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it deletes a memory by key and mentions 'clear sensitive data' as a use case, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as irreversibility or whether it returns a confirmation. This is adequate but not 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. No extraneous information.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and pairing. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, though it could optionally mention what happens if the key does not exist or if deletion is successful.
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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the only parameter ('Memory key to delete'). The tool description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.
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), the resource (a memory by key), and the context (previously stored memory). It distinguishes from siblings like 'remember' and 'recall' by implication, as it pairs with them rather than duplicating their functions.
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?
Explicit when-to-use scenarios are given: 'context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data.' It also suggests pairing with 'remember' and 'recall,' which indirectly indicates when not to use it (e.g., for storing or retrieving). No explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria are provided.
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 set contains several tightly overlapping clusters: ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical) vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, five polymarket_* tools with related purposes, and entity_profile vs compare_entities vs recent_changes covering similar company-research ground. The four game tools are distinct but swamped by the unrelated Pipeworx majority, making correct tool selection genuinely difficult.
No coherent naming scheme spans the set: snake_case verb_noun (get_game, list_platforms, scan_dependency) coexists with verb_prefix descriptors (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt), domain-prefixed nouns (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending), and bare verbs like recall and forget. Even within the Pipeworx cluster, styles vary unpredictably (ask_pipeworx vs pipeworx_feedback vs scan_competitor_ai_presence).
35 tools is far too many for a server named Thegamesdb, where only 4 of 35 tools relate to the game database at all. The remaining 31 tools constitute a broad Pipeworx data platform with heavy internal overlap, making the surface feel bloated rather than well-scoped.
For the declared TheGamesDB domain, coverage is minimal: search, get-by-id, and list genres/platforms, with no per-platform game listings, images/artwork, or updates/refresh functionality. If the true domain is Pipeworx data access, the surface is fairly complete, but as presented under Thegamesdb there are major gaps and a severe identity mismatch.