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?
The destructive nature is already declared via annotations (destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: true). The description adds 'previously stored' and 'the agent saved earlier' as context, but does not go beyond annotations with detailed behavioral traits like irreversible deletion or handling of missing keys. It is adequate but not rich.
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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage scenarios, and sibling tool pairing. No redundancy or wasted words.
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 comprehensive annotations and schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and related tools. No output schema is needed for this straightforward operation.
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% with the 'key' parameter described as 'Memory key to delete'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('previously stored memory'), and the mechanism ('by key'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'remember' and 'recall' by explicitly pairing with them and focusing on deletion of stored data.
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 usage scenarios ('when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data') and names complementary tools ('Pair with remember and recall'), giving clear guidance on when to use this tool.
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 tool families have ambiguous boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are three variants of the same router (with beta currently identical), and the six polymarket tools plus bet_research heavily overlap in scanning and pricing edges. discover_tools, suggest_questions, and deep_research also all function as 'what should I query' entry points. Agents will struggle to select the right tool without carefully reading long descriptions.
Many tools follow a clear verb-first snake_case pattern (get_article_extract, resolve_entity, subscribe, validate_claim), and families like ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* are internally consistent. However, notable noun-phrase outliers such as entity_profile, deep_research, bet_research, recent_changes, pipeworx_feedback, and polymarket_edge_tracker break the convention. The naming is readable but not predictable across the full set.
36 tools is well over the 25+ threshold for a typical MCP server, and for a server named 'wikipedia' it is especially disproportionate: only 5 tools actually deal with Wikipedia while 31 are Pipeworx data, prediction-market, memory, subscription, and feedback utilities. The count reflects a broad all-in-one platform crammed into a Wikipedia-labeled surface rather than a well-scoped server. This is a significant scope mismatch.
The Wikipedia portion is reasonably complete for read-only lookup: search, summary, sections, full extract, and random discovery cover common encyclopedic questions without dead ends. The broader Pipeworx surface is also extensive, with query, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution/profile/comparison, claim validation, memory, and subscription lifecycle tools. Minor gaps remain (no article categories/history, no update for subscriptions, no direct fetch of a citation URI), but they are workable.