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, indicating a destructive, idempotent delete operation. The description adds context about clearing sensitive data, but no additional behavioral details beyond what annotations provide. 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?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by usage and pairing guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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 delete tool with solid annotations (destructive, idempotent) and no output schema, the description fully covers what, when, and how it relates to other tools. No gaps in practical information.
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 description coverage is 100% (the 'key' property is already described as 'Memory key to delete'). The description only says 'by key,' which adds no new semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
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') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning 'Pair with remember and recall.' This makes it obvious that this tool removes memories, unlike remember (store) or recall (retrieve).
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?
It provides explicit when-to-use conditions ('when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name direct alternatives beyond the pairing sentence. Still, the guidance is 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.
Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical routers, and the five polymarket_* tools all deal with prediction-market edge detection and filling risk. Memory and subscription tools are clear, but the data-access and research tools require careful reading to avoid selecting the wrong entry point.
All names use snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern such as search_universities and resolve_entity, but the set mixes product-prefixed names (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research). The ask_pipeworx_beta suffix also introduces a naming convention not used elsewhere.
At 32 tools, the server exceeds the heavy threshold, and almost all tools are unrelated to the apparent 'universities' domain—only search_universities matches the server name. The count might suit a broad data-research platform, but it is poorly scoped for this server's stated identity.
For the domain implied by the server name, the surface is severely incomplete: only a name/country university search exists, with no university detail, ranking, program, admissions, or comparison coverage. Agents would dead-end immediately after finding a list of universities.