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 context about clearing 'sensitive data' but does not elaborate on behavior like idempotency or error handling for missing keys. It adds some value but not rich behavioral context.
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 concise sentences: purpose, usage guidelines, and sibling tool mention. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 tool with annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and behavioral implications (clearing sensitive data). It lacks details on return values or error cases, but given the tool's simplicity, it is fairly 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?
Only one parameter 'key' with complete schema description ('Memory key to delete'). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'remember' and 'recall' by implying a deletion action.
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?
Explicitly provides when-to-use scenarios: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data.' It also mentions pairing with 'remember' and 'recall,' offering guidance on alternatives.
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 occupy nearly interchangeable roles: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, while ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route similar factual queries. discover_tools/suggest_questions and bet_research/polymarket_edges similarly overlap, so an agent needs to read long descriptions to avoid misselection.
All names are readable lowercase snake_case, but the conventions are mixed: imperative verb_noun names (list_subscriptions, validate_claim) sit alongside noun phrases (polymarket_edges, recent_alerts), bare verbs (forget, subscribe), and variant suffixes (ask_pipeworx_beta/grounded). It is not chaotic, but there is no single predictable naming pattern.
Thirty-two tools is far more than the apparent Texas DMV scope supports: only tx_dmv_vehicle_registrations is DMV-related, and the rest are Pipeworx platform, prediction-market, memory, and unrelated utility tools. The count is excessive for the server's stated name and purpose.
The Texas DMV surface is severely incomplete: a single statewide registration-count tool covering fiscal years 2001-2021, with no title/registration transactions, VIN lookup, driver services, county/ZIP breakdowns, or current data. The tool's own description references a California DMV companion that is not present, leaving obvious gaps for any realistic DMV workflow.