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, which cover the behavioral traits. The description adds usage context (clearing stale or sensitive data) but does not contradict the annotations. No additional behavioral detail beyond the annotations is needed.
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 long, with the first defining the action and the second providing usage guidance. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 simple delete operation with a single required parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers the action, usage context, and relationship with sibling tools, leaving no gaps.
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 has 100% coverage for the single 'key' parameter, which already describes it as 'Memory key to delete'. The description does not add new semantic information about the parameter, so a baseline score 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 explicitly states 'Delete a previously stored memory by key', using a specific verb and resource. It also mentions pairing with sibling tools 'remember' and 'recall', clearly distinguishing its role.
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 clear when-to-use scenarios: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'. It suggests pairing with siblings but doesn't explicitly state when not to use or alternatives beyond the immediate family.
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 have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, bet_research overlaps heavily with polymarket_edges, and entity_profile/recent_changes/compare_entities/validate_claim all pull from the same SEC/news fundamentals space. The memory trio and game lookup tools are distinct, but too many other tools could be confused for one another.
The surface is uniformly snake_case and has some strong families (list_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*), but it mixes verb-led names (search_games, remember, validate_claim) with noun-led names (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending) and brand-style names like ask_pipeworx. There is a pattern, but it is not a single consistent one.
35 tools is a heavy surface, and the set feels sprawling rather than focused: a four-tool RAWG game submodule sits alongside a general-purpose research platform, Polymarket edge tooling, memory helpers, subscriptions, feedback, and meta-utilities. Many of these could have been consolidated or split into separate servers.
As a general data-research and prediction-market platform the coverage is strong, with lookup, grounded verification, entity resolution, research fan-out, and subscription flows. But for a server named Rawg, the game domain is thinly covered with only search/get/list tools and no game-detail enrichment or broader browsing surface, leaving the core domain feeling like an afterthought.