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 declare destructiveHint and readOnlyHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds the memory context and sensitive data nuance, consistent with annotations, but doesn't reveal additional behavior beyond what is already known.
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, zero filler. Every word 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?
With a single parameter, complete schema, and clear annotations, the description covers all necessary selection and invocation context. It could mention irreversibility, but the destructiveHint annotation already covers that.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description only says 'by key' and adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Memory key to delete'.
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 'Delete a previously stored memory by key' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning pairing with remember and recall.
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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: stale context, task done, or clearing sensitive data. It also references companion tools, providing context, though it lacks when-not-to-use conditions.
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.
Many tools overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer questions; multiple prediction market tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) have subtle distinctions. An agent would struggle to choose correctly among these.
Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_subscriptions, generate_llms_txt). A few are noun phrases (stable_phases) but the style is uniform and predictable.
33 tools is high for a single server, especially given the mix of two unrelated domains (materials database and general data querying). Many prediction market tools could be consolidated, and the broad scope suggests over-engineering.
The materials data side covers search and retrieval adequately. The query side offers many capabilities but has redundant paths (e.g., multiple ways to ask questions) and gaps in editing or updating data. Overall coverage is mixed.