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 and idempotentHint=true. The description adds little beyond restating deletion; it doesn't disclose details like permanence or error behavior. However, it does specify the use case of clearing sensitive data, which is contextual but not a behavioral trait.
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 with the action, and every sentence contributes: purpose, usage context, and sibling pairing. No fluff.
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 one-parameter tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description covers purpose and usage. It doesn't mention missing-key behavior, but that's minor given the tool's simplicity.
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% – the 'key' parameter is fully described in the schema. The description only says 'by key', adding no semantic detail beyond what is already structured.
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' – a specific verb (delete), resource (memory), and method (by key). It differentiates from siblings by naming 'remember' and 'recall' as counterparts.
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 says 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data' – providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also references pairing with 'remember and recall', effectively pointing to alternatives.
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 occupy nearly the same question-answering role: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all accept natural-language factual queries, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx today. The polymarket_* family also has overlapping opportunity-detection responsibilities, so an agent can easily select a near-duplicate tool for the same intent.
Tool names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and use recognizable domain prefixes like ask_pipeworx_, polymarket_, datalastic_, and pipeworx_, which makes the set easy to group. The main deviation is that some names are verb-first (ask, compare, subscribe) while others are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, bet_research), but this is minor and readable.
At 33 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold for a single server, and many of them are meta-tools or overlapping research/opportunity scanners that could be consolidated. The breadth is justified only partially; several utilities like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency feel bolted on.
As a general research and monitoring toolkit it covers the full life cycle: discover, ask, verify, compare, profile, cite, remember, subscribe, and alert. But the server is named Datalastic yet the maritime surface is thin (only live position and radius lookup, no historical tracking, port calls, or fleet tools), and a few one-off utilities don't fit a coherent domain.