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.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the context of clearing sensitive data and pairing with related tools, but does not disclose what happens if the key does not exist or whether deletion is permanent. Given the annotations cover the main behavioral traits, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 serving a purpose: the first states the action, the second gives usage scenarios, and the third relates it to sibling tools. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary wording.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and how it relates to other memory tools. Annotations cover the destructive and idempotent nature, so no additional context is needed.
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 description covers 100% of the single parameter 'key' with 'Memory key to delete'. The description's phrase 'by key' mirrors the schema without adding extra detail on key format or semantics, so it does not go 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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' and identifies the resource as 'a previously stored memory by key'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'remember' and 'recall' by noting 'Pair with 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?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier'. It also mentions pairing with remember and recall, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives beyond the pairing.
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 tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical in current behavior, ai_visibility_check is subsumed by scan_competitor_ai_presence, and the six Polymarket-related tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) blur together. An agent would struggle to pick the right tool without reading the very long descriptions in full.
Naming conventions are mixed: verb_noun (check_ip, get_blacklist, report_ip), bare nouns (entity_profile, deep_research, bet_research), prefix families (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), and standalone verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe). The server itself is named Abuseipdb but the vast majority of tools are Pipeworx-related, making the naming feel disconnected from the server identity.
At 34 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold for a heavy tool surface. The set is a grab bag of unrelated domains—AbuseIPDB, Pipeworx data access, Polymarket betting, memory management, AI visibility, dependency scanning, and llms.txt generation—rather than a cohesive single-purpose server. Many meta-tools (suggest_questions, discover_tools, pipeworx_trending, pipeworx_feedback) further inflate the count.
The de facto Pipeworx data-access domain is well covered with router, grounded, deep-research, entity, comparison, validation, resolution, change-feed, and search-within tools, plus memory and subscription lifecycle support. However, the nominal AbuseIPDB purpose has only three tools (check, blacklist, report) with no categories, bulk lookup, or detailed report features, and some subdomains lack updates (e.g., no subscription editing), creating notable gaps.