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 disclose destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds context (e.g., clearing sensitive data) but no additional behavioral traits. It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.
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, front-loaded with the action, and contains no wasted words. It efficiently conveys purpose, usage, and related tools.
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 destructive tool with strong annotations, the description covers the core action, usage triggers, and sibling relationships. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description is complete.
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 the parameter 'key' described as 'Memory key to delete'. The description does not add information 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?
The description states 'Delete a previously stored memory by key' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools 'remember' and 'recall'. Its function is 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?
Explicit usage conditions are provided ('context is stale, task is done, or clear sensitive data') and related tools are mentioned ('Pair with remember and recall'). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, so it does not fully earn a 5.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. Potential confusion exists between similar tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the descriptions differentiate them well. The high number of tools across multiple domains could still cause some ambiguity, but overall an agent can distinguish them.
Naming patterns are mixed. Some subgroups follow consistent patterns (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, get_*), but overall the set includes verb_noun (list_subscriptions, get_rate, remember) and noun_verb (entity_profile, deep_research) without a unified convention. The mixture of imperative and descriptive names reduces predictability.
34 tools is excessive for a single server, bundling unrelated domains (currency, memory, data query, prediction markets, dependency scanning). This scope could be split into multiple servers for better coherence. The high count may overwhelm agents and increases the risk of misselection.
Each sub-domain (e.g., currency, memory, Polymarket) has reasonable coverage with common operations present. However, the server name 'exchange' is misleading—it suggests a narrower focus. Some gaps exist (e.g., no batch currency conversion, no direct Polymarket market detail tool). Overall, the set covers many tasks but lacks a unified purpose.