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 indicate destructive and idempotent, and the description reinforces this with 'Delete' and 'clear sensitive data'. It adds context about when deletion is appropriate, but not many new behavioral details beyond the annotations.
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 crisp sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then usage guidance, then related tools. No wasted words; every segment earns its place.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with clear annotations, the description fully covers what it does, when to use it, and how it relates to siblings. No gaps remain.
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?
The input schema's single parameter 'key' is fully described as 'Memory key to delete' (100% coverage). The description adds little beyond the schema, only repeating 'by key' and giving an example in the schema itself.
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 opens with a specific verb (Delete) and a clear resource (previously stored memory by key). It distinguishes this from siblings like remember (write) and recall (read).
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 tells when to use: stale context, task done, clearing sensitive data. Also pairs with remember and recall, giving relational context that helps the agent choose among the memory tools.
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 server contains 4 joke-related tools and 31 tools from the Pipeworx data ecosystem, which are entirely unrelated. An agent cannot easily distinguish whether to use a joke tool or a data tool, causing extreme ambiguity.
Tool names within the joke subset (e.g., get_joke, search_jokes) and Pipeworx subset (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile) are individually consistent, but the overall set has no unified naming pattern or domain signal, making the server's purpose unclear.
With 35 tools, the count is excessive for a jokes-themed server. Only 4 tools are joke-related; the remaining 31 belong to a completely different domain, making the tool count highly inappropriate.
The joke coverage (get, search, categories, flags) is minimal but functional. However, the server as a whole is a Frankenstein of unrelated domains, lacking a coherent surface. The overwhelming majority of tools are irrelevant to the server name.