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 declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the mutation and idempotency aspects. The description adds context about clearing sensitive data and stale context, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling on non-existent keys. No contradiction with annotations.
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 compact, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance and tool pairing. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?
For a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and robust annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description is complete. It clearly explains what the tool does, when to use it, and how it relates to sibling tools. No critical information is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'key' is described as 'Memory key to delete' in the schema. The description's 'by key' adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 opens with a specific action: 'Delete a previously stored memory by key.' This clearly states the tool's function and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly pairing with 'remember' and 'recall,' making its role as the deletion counterpart unambiguous.
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 provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier.' It also mentions related tools via 'Pair with remember and recall,' but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name an alternative to choose instead, so it falls short of the top score.
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.
Some tools have distinct purposes (e.g., color tools, memory tools), but many data query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile) overlap significantly, making it hard for an agent to choose the right one without deep knowledge of their nuances.
Most tool names use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., convert_color, identify_color, resolve_entity), but there is inconsistency in prefixes: some use 'ask_pipeworx', others 'pipeworx_', 'polymarket_', or 'scan_'. Overall, still readable and predictable.
33 tools is on the high side for a single server, especially one named 'colorapi' which misleadingly suggests a focus on color only. The tool count is borderline appropriate for the actual broad data integration scope, but the mismatch with the server name is problematic.
The tool set covers a wide range of data sources and operations (SEC, FDA, patents, news, Polymarket, memory, subscriptions), with few obvious gaps. Minor lacks: no direct tool for updating stored memories or handling non-US companies, but overall comprehensive.