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, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful context by specifying what gets destroyed ('a previously stored memory by key') and the rationale for deletion ('clear sensitive data'). It does not contradict 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 three concise, well-structured sentences. It front-loads the action, then gives usage guidance and relationship to siblings. 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 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and relationship to related tools. It omits edge-case behavior (e.g., deleting a non-existent key), but the idempotentHint annotation implies this is safe, so completeness is good.
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 already fully documents the only parameter ('key' with description 'Memory key to delete'), providing 100% coverage. The description only restates the key concept without adding additional syntax, format, or behavioral details beyond the schema.
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 starts with 'Delete a previously stored memory by key', which is a specific verb+resource action that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like remember (store) and recall (retrieve). It unambiguously states the tool's function.
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 provides explicit use cases: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'. It also positions the tool within a memory workflow by saying 'Pair with remember and recall', but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or list specific alternatives as exclusions.
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.
Multiple tool clusters overlap heavily: three ask_pipeworx variants, five polymarket_* tools, and two AI-visibility tools (ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence) could easily be misselected. While descriptions are detailed, the boundaries between search/research/bet/compare tools are blurry enough to cause agent confusion.
Tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case pattern, and most use a verb-first or noun-based descriptive style (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, entity_profile, validate_claim). Minor deviations like deep_research or process_v2 are absent here; the set is largely predictable and readable.
At 32 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold for heaviness. Many tools are edge-case variants or meta-features (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, suggest_questions) that could be consolidated. The server's stated identity as 'Victorian Complaint' also clashes with this scale, making the count feel excessive for the apparent core purpose.
The tool set provides broad coverage for data research, entity resolution, comparison, memory, subscriptions, and prediction-market analysis. It supports query, research, discover, validate, and monitor workflows with few dead ends. Minor gaps like a generic 'get_entity' or direct data-writing tools exist, but they are not core to the implied domain.