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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the deletion behavior is known. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it requires a free API key, entries remain private, and deletion helps manage quota. This is meaningful additional behavioral disclosure with no contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The operation is front-loaded, followed by the usage rationale and authentication requirement. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter deletion tool, the description covers the operation, when to use it, the auth requirement, and the privacy/quota context. The annotations cover destructiveness and idempotency. Minor gaps like return value or behavior for nonexistent keys are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 describes the only parameter, key, with type string, maxLength 200, and description "The key to delete." The description adds no further semantic detail about the parameter, so with high schema 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 a specific verb and resource, "Delete a stored key," which unambiguously states the operation. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools memory_set, memory_get, and memory_list, which handle writing, reading, and listing respectively.

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 explicit usage context: "Use it to clean up entries you no longer need, since each API key has a quota." This explains when deletion is appropriate, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource or action, and the detailed descriptions clearly separate near neighbors like generate_test_bsn versus generate_brp_test_data, read_page versus url_screenshot versus url_to_pdf, and image_compress/convert/resize. Even with 40 tools, there is no real boundary-blurring overlap.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and readable, but the set mixes conventions: verb_noun (generate_*, validate_*), noun_verb (pdf_merge, image_resize), conversion-style names (csv_to_json, html_to_pdf), and bare nouns (base64, qr_code_png). The groups are recognizable, but there is no single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

Forty tools is an oversized surface for an agent to consider on every call, well above the point where tool selection cost starts to hurt. The broad purpose explains the count, but many one-off utilities could be grouped or exposed selectively.

Completeness3/5

The server covers many domains—encoding, Dutch test data, image/PDF handling, memory, and workflows—but several categories are partial: there are no reverse conversions like json_to_csv or html_to_markdown, no PDF text extraction, and no workflow create/update/delete tools. Agents can work around some gaps, but notable operations are missing.

Resources

Need Help?