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 mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by noting sensitive data clearing, but does not repeat safety profile.
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, no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.
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 delete operation, the description fully explains purpose, usage context, and sibling relations. No output schema 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for 'key'. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning 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 clearly states 'Delete a previously stored memory by key', specifying a unique verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like '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?
Explicitly states when to use: when context is stale, task done, or clearing sensitive data. Mentions pairing with siblings, but no explicit when-not-to-use.
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 tools are nearly indistinguishable, particularly ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, plus a cluster of overlapping Polymarket tools. The three OTX-specific tools are buried among 31 unrelated utilities, making correct selection highly error-prone.
Tool names are consistently snake_case and mostly readable, but the pattern is mixed: imperative verbs like ask_, get_, lookup_, and validate_ coexist with noun-first names like entity_profile, polymarket_edges, and recent_alerts. It is not chaotic, but the style is not predictable enough for a 5.
34 tools is excessive for a server purportedly about Alienvault OTX, with only 3 tools actually serving that domain. The bulk are unrelated data-retrieval, prediction-market, memory, and utility tools, making the set feel unfocused and overstuffed.
For a server named Alienvault OTX, the surface is severely incomplete: search_pulses, get_pulse, and lookup_indicator cover only basic threat-intel lookup. There is no coverage of OTX events, malware details, passive DNS, indicator enrichment, or OTX subscription workflows, while most of the 34 tools address entirely different domains.