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?
Description confirms destructive nature, aligning with annotations (destructiveHint=true). Adds 'clear sensitive data' context. No contradiction with annotations; idempotentHint=true is consistent.
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, no wasted words, action verb first, efficient and clear.
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?
Given single parameter and annotations, description adequately covers purpose. No output schema, but response format is not critical. Could mention idempotency or error handling, but not required for this simple tool.
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 parameter 'key' described as 'Memory key to delete'. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?
Description clearly states 'Delete a previously stored memory by key', specifying the verb (delete) and resource (memory by key). Distinguishes from siblings like remember and recall by focusing on deletion.
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 lists use cases: stale context, task completion, clearing sensitive data. Mentions pairing with remember and recall, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives beyond siblings.
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.
The tool set contains multiple clusters with heavy overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same underlying data sources, making it ambiguous which to choose. Similarly, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, and bet_research all target prediction-market opportunities with fuzzy boundaries between them. The three DigitalNZ tools (search, record, search_within) are distinct, but the rest of the set obscures their purpose.
Most tools use snake_case with descriptive names, and the polymarket_* cluster is consistent among itself. However, conventions are mixed: some are verb-first (validate_claim, discover_tools, remember), some are noun-first (entity_profile, recent_changes), and ask_pipeworx_beta breaks the pattern with a suffix variant. The naming is readable overall but not uniform.
At 33 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold for a 'too heavy' count. The vast majority of tools belong to the Pipeworx data-query and prediction-market domains rather than DigitalNZ, which is the server's stated name. A focused DigitalNZ server would need closer to 5-10 tools; a Pipeworx server would still be over-packed at 33 given the functional overlap.
For the DigitalNZ domain, the surface is severely incomplete: only search, record, and search_within exist, with no browse, filter, facet, or contribution capabilities. The Pipeworx side is more complete but still has gaps (e.g., no direct per-source query tools, and several tools soft-fail on sunset APIs). The server tries to cover two unrelated domains and satisfies neither fully.