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 indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the action as 'delete' and 'clear sensitive data', confirming the destructive nature without 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?
Three sentences, all essential and front-loaded with the action. No redundancy or filler.
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 tool with annotations and a clear schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, and pairing. 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the parameter description 'Memory key to delete' is already clear. The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond referencing 'by key', so it meets the baseline.
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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'previously stored memory by key'. It is distinct from the sibling tools 'remember' and 'recall' implicitly by specifying deletion vs. storage vs. 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 specific scenarios for use: stale context, task completion, clearing sensitive data. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear and helpful.
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 form near-overlapping clusters: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research all route questions, and bet_research/polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage/polymarket_fill_risk/polymarket_kalshi_spread all target prediction-market edges. ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx today, so an agent must read long descriptions to pick correctly. Most other tools are distinct, but the ambiguous clusters pull the score down.
All names use snake_case and are readable, but conventions mix: many are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools, subscribe), several are noun phrases (macro_snapshot, indicator, entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage), and a few are adjective_noun (recent_alerts, deep_research). The near-duplicate ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded suffixes form the only consistent family, but overall the naming pattern is not uniform.
33 tools is well beyond the 15-tool well-scoped range and even past the 25-tool 'too many' threshold. The server tries to be a data router, prediction-market desk, AI visibility checker, memory store, and subscription manager all at once, and includes an intentional duplicate (ask_pipeworx_beta). Several tools (remember/recall/forget, subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions/recent_alerts) could be their own server.
The surface covers question answering, deep research, entity resolution/profile/comparison, macro indicators, prediction-market analytics, subscriptions, memory, and feedback—no obvious dead ends for the main workflows. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct generic web search, no update for saved memory other than overwrite, and some niche additions like generate_llms_txt feel out of place), but the core data and research lifecycle is well covered.