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 provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds minimal context beyond 'previously stored memory'.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded purpose, no 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?
Covers essentials for a simple deletion tool. Could mention what happens if key doesn't exist, but usage guidelines compensate.
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 coverage 100%, parameter description in schema is sufficient. Description does not add new semantics.
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?
Clear verb 'Delete' and resource 'memory by key'. Distinguished from siblings 'remember' and 'recall'.
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 scenarios: stale context, task done, clear sensitive data. Suggests pairing with remember and recall.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but the server mixes WMATA transit tools (bus routes, rail predictions) with unrelated general-purpose tools (deep_research, polymarket_arbitrage). This broad scope can confuse an agent expecting a focused transit server.
All names use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern. Many are noun_noun (bus_routes, rail_lines) or verb_properNoun (ask_pipeworx), and the naming conventions vary wildly across different domains (e.g., validate_claim vs entity_profile vs scan_dependency).
41 tools is excessive for a WMATA transit server. The vast majority of tools (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, polymarket_*) are not related to WMATA, making the tool surface bloated and unfocused for its stated purpose.
The WMATA-specific tools cover core bus and rail operations (incidents, predictions, routes, stations). However, gaps like fare info and elevator status are missing. The non-transit tools are extensive but irrelevant to the server's apparent focus.