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 destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Delete' aligns with these. The description adds valuable context about why deletion might be needed (stale context, task completion, sensitive data), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the operational context. No contradiction with 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase earns its place. It efficiently conveys purpose, usage timing, and related tools without fluff.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, and annotations already cover destructive and idempotent behavior. The description fully covers purpose and usage context, making it complete for agent decision-making. The pairing with remember and recall also situates it within the memory workflow.
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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'key' with description 'Memory key to delete.' The description's 'by key' adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
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 'Delete a previously stored memory by key,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like remember and recall. It unambiguously communicates the action and scope.
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?
The description provides explicit use cases: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier.' It also names companion tools (remember and recall), effectively guiding the agent on when this tool is appropriate relative to alternatives.
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 tool set mixes OKX exchange tools with a large set of Pipeworx data query tools and prediction market tools. Many tools overlap in purpose, e.g., ask_pipeworx, deep_research, and ask_pipeworx_grounded all answer questions but with different modes. OKX tools like ticker and tickers are clear but the overall set is confusing.
Naming is inconsistent: OKX tools use single nouns or underscores (ticker, order_book), Pipeworx tools use verb phrases (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim), and prediction market tools use prefixed names (polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research). No consistent pattern.
43 tools is excessive for a coherent server. The scope is unclear—combining exchange, data lookup, and prediction market tools into one server results in a cluttered surface.
The server tries to cover too many domains. OKX coverage is decent, but the inclusion of many unrelated tools (e.g., generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) makes the set feel incomplete for any single purpose. Gaps exist in each sub-domain due to the broad scope.