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, so the description adds little beyond stating the deletion action. It does not disclose what happens if the key doesn’t exist or any side effects, but annotations cover the key behavioral aspects adequately.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage guidance. It is well front-loaded and efficient.
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 the simple tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description completely covers purpose and usage. Annotations add behavioral context, and siblings are mentioned. No gaps remain for an agent to understand the 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any new information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides ('Memory key to delete'). No additional semantics or format hints are given.
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 the action 'Delete a previously stored memory by key', identifying the resource (memory) and the identifier (key). It distinguishes itself from siblings 'remember' and 'recall' by suggesting pairing, making the purpose 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 usage scenarios: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier.' It also mentions pairing with related tools, though it does not explicitly list alternatives for 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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same underlying catalog, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. The six Polymarket-related tools also form a confusing cluster where boundaries require reading very long descriptions to separate.
Most names use lowercase snake_case, but conventions are mixed: some are verb_object forms like resolve_entity or validate_claim, while others are noun phrases like entity_profile, recent_alerts, or polymarket_edges. The ask_pipeworx family and domain-prefixed ecuador_ tools add further inconsistency, though the names remain readable.
33 tools is already above the 25-tool threshold, but the bigger problem is scope mismatch: only two tools relate to Ecuador procurement, while 31 are generic Pipeworx, Polymarket, memory, subscription, and utility tools. The set is heavily overbuilt for the server's stated purpose.
The Ecuador domain itself has a workable minimal read path: search tenders, then fetch full detail by OCID. However, there are no Ecuador-specific browsing, filtering, category, agency, or analytics tools, and the huge unrelated toolset does nothing to fill those gaps.