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 flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context that the deletion targets a 'previously stored memory by key,' which clarifies the scope of destruction. It does not over-explain 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?
Three concise sentences pack the action, usage context, and related tools. No redundant or filler content; all sentences earn their 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 delete tool with complete schema and annotations, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and pairing, making it complete without needing an output schema.
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% with the key parameter described as 'Memory key to delete.' The description merely repeats 'by key' without adding new semantic details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource: 'Delete a previously stored memory by key.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like remember (store) and recall (retrieve).
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?
It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier.' It also recommends pairing with remember and recall, giving clear context for its role.
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.
Multiple tools are near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded share nearly identical routing, with beta explicitly described as currently identical to stable. The six Polymarket-related tools also form a dense cluster with subtle boundaries, and discover_tools/suggest_questions overlap in onboarding purpose.
Most tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern (check_password, resolve_entity, compare_entities, list_subscriptions), and family prefixes like ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* are applied consistently. Minor deviations exist (ai_visibility_check, pipeworx_trending), but the overall convention is predictable.
32 tools is well past the 25+ threshold and the set feels bloated: several ask_pipeworx variants and Polymarket scanning tools could be consolidated, and unrelated utilities (check_password, scan_dependency, generate_llms_txt) are mixed into what is otherwise a data-research platform. The broad scope does not justify this many top-level entry points.
The main data-research workflow is well covered: routing, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution/profiles, comparisons, recent changes, discovery, and feedback are all present. Memory and subscription lifecycles are also complete; minor gaps remain such as the lone password tool lacking generation or breach-checking companions, and no direct raw-fetch tool, but these are workable.