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 declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint; description adds context by identifying the resource ('previously stored memory') and use case ('clear sensitive data'). No contradictory or missing critical behavioral info beyond 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 sentences, action first, then usage guidance and sibling references. Every sentence 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?
Tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and annotations cover destructive/idempotent behavior. Description gives purpose, when-to-use, and sibling pairing — sufficient for a simple 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 description covers 100% of the parameter ('Memory key to delete'). The description adds no additional parameter details beyond saying 'by key', so baseline 3 applies.
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 states 'Delete a previously stored memory by key' — a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'remember' and 'recall' by implying store/retrieve vs delete.
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 states when to use: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data' and suggests pairing with 'remember' and 'recall'.
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.
Descriptions are exceptionally detailed and differentiate tools well; the ask_pipeworx family (stable/beta/grounded), polymarket tools, and npm lookup tools each have clear separation of intent. Minor overlap exists between polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage (both surface opportunities) and between discover_tools, suggest_questions, and pipeworx_trending (all aid discovery), but descriptions mostly resolve the ambiguity.
All names are snake_case and several families are consistent (get_*, list_*, search_*, ask_pipeworx, polymarket_*), but the convention is inconsistent: verb-first names (resolve_entity, validate_claim, scan_dependency) coexist with noun-first or noun-only names (entity_profile, deep_research, bet_research, recent_alerts, ai_visibility_check, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_arbitrage). No clear governing pattern beyond snake_case.
36 tools is well over the 25-tool heavy threshold, and the majority (~29) are unrelated to the server's declared 'npm' identity — they are Pipeworx data-query, prediction-market, memory, and subscription tools. Only about 7 tools (search_packages, get_package, get_version_info, list_versions, get_downloads, scan_dependency, generate_llms_txt) actually pertain to npm. The scope is a kitchen-sink mismatch with the server name.
For npm, the read-side surface is reasonably complete: search, inspect package metadata, version listings, download counts, and a dependency-safety composite check. However, there are no lifecycle operations (publish, unpublish, deprecate, set versions/tags), leaving a notable gap, and the bulk of the server's functionality (data queries, prediction bets) belongs to an entirely different domain that can't be cohesively evaluated against the npm purpose.