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 indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description confirms deletion and adds context about clearing sensitive data. No contradictions, but could mention irreversibility or security implications.
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 with zero waste: purpose first, then usage guidance. Perfectly 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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description, combined with annotations, covers purpose, usage, safety, and idempotency. No gaps identified.
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 'key' parameter described as 'Memory key to delete'. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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' with specific verb, resource, and method. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remember' and 'recall' by implying deletion versus creation or retrieval.
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?
Provides explicit use cases: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data.' It also suggests pairing with related tools, though it lacks explicit 'do not use' guidance.
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 have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, and the multiple Polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) all surface betting opportunities with only subtle differences. The line between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and discover_tools is also fuzzy, making misselection likely.
All tool names use snake_case and are readable, but naming conventions are mixed: many follow verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, discover_tools, list_foreign_principals), while others use noun-first or adjective_noun (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, recent_alerts). Several tools share the 'pipeworx_' or 'polymarket_' prefix without that prefix meaning a consistent action type.
34 tools is high for a single MCP server, and the scope spans unrelated domains (general data lookup, prediction-market analytics, FARA registrations, memory, subscriptions, AI-visibility monitoring). This feels like several servers merged rather than one cohesive set; many tools could be split into focused modules without losing functionality.
Core workflows are well covered: flexible data querying (ask_pipeworx, grounded, deep_research), entity resolution, FARA search/document retrieval, memory CRUD, subscription lifecycle, and claim validation. There are minor gaps such as no direct tool for single-source parameterized queries (everything routes through the universal router) and no account/profile management, but agents can complete the main advertised tasks.