ToolForte

Forget a value

memory_delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a stored key. Use it to clean up entries you no longer need, since each API key has a quota. Requires a free API key (Authorization: Bearer tf_...) so entries stay private to you: https://toolforte.com/developers

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	Yes	The key to delete

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`key`	No	The memory key
`result`	No	The result, when it is not an object
`deleted`	No	Whether an entry existed and was removed

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 5, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "deleted": {
+      "description": "Whether an entry existed and was removed",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "key": {
+      "description": "The memory key",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "result": {
+      "description": "The result, when it is not an object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, and the description adds useful context about the API key quota and privacy implications. It does not describe what happens when the key does not exist, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden and the provided auth context is valuable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the quota rationale justifies the cleanup use case, and the auth requirement is included as a necessary operational detail without excessive length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

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, the description covers purpose, when to use it, and the required authorization. The presence of an output schema and annotations covers return behavior and safety, so nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema fully documents the single 'key' parameter with 'The key to delete,' and the description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond that. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Delete a stored key,' a specific verb and resource that clearly states what the tool does. The title 'Forget a value' reinforces this and the sibling context with memory_get, memory_list, and memory_set makes the delete operation unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives concrete guidance: use it to clean up entries you no longer need, with the added rationale that each API key has a quota. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like memory_set or memory_get, but the use case 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.

All ToolForte tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a clearly distinct resource and action, so an agent can usually tell them apart. A few close pairs exist (generate_test_bsn vs generate_brp_test_data, html_to_pdf vs url_to_pdf, read_page vs url_screenshot), but the descriptions draw clear boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern like generate_slug, validate_email, or pdf_merge. There are a few noun-style exceptions such as base64, csv_to_json, and password_strength, but no mixed casing or chaotic naming.

Tool Count3/5

40 tools is heavy and exceeds the comfortable selection range for most agents. The server presents itself as a general-purpose utility toolbox, so the breadth is defensible, but the large flat tool list creates real navigation burden.

Completeness4/5

The toolkit covers common encoding, conversion, image/PDF, validation, Dutch-specific test data, memory, and workflow needs quite well. Minor gaps like PDF text extraction or JSON-to-CSV conversion exist, but agents can typically work around them.

Resources

Need Help?