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?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds context about the type of data (sensitive data saved earlier) and that the action is a deletion, which is consistent with the annotations. It does not go into further behavioral detail like irreversibility, but with annotations covering the main traits, this is adequate.
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 deliver purpose and usage without filler. Every clause contributes meaningful information, and the text is appropriately front-loaded with the action.
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 destructive tool, the description provides purpose, usage context, and sibling relationships. Annotations cover destructive and idempotent behavior, and the schema fully describes the parameter. No output schema exists, so return value documentation is not expected. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 schema has 100% coverage of the only parameter, 'key', described as 'Memory key to delete.' The description reinforces that the key identifies the memory but doesn't add new semantics beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high 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' — a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like remember (store) and recall (retrieve). The name 'forget' reinforces the delete semantics, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 second sentence provides explicit usage scenarios: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier.' It also mentions pairing with 'remember and recall,' which guides tool selection. No explicit 'when not to use' is given, but the positive guidance is clear.
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 ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded trio are three variants of the same router — and the beta variant is explicitly stated to be identical to the stable one right now, making mis-selection nearly inevitable. The six polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also have subtly overlapping boundaries where an agent could easily grab the wrong one.
Nearly all tools use snake_case with a clear verb_noun or noun_compound shape (get_company_facts, resolve_entity, recent_changes, polymarket_edges). Minor deviations: the bare-verb memory trio (remember/recall/forget), the brand-style ask_pipeworx* naming, and a mix of verb-first vs. entity-first ordering, but the overall pattern is readable and predictable.
34 tools is well above the typical well-scoped range, but the server's actual scope is enormous — a universal structured-data gateway, prediction-market suite, memory system, subscription system, and utility tools. However, the count feels inflated by genuine redundancy: ask_pipeworx_beta currently duplicates ask_pipeworx, and the polymarket cluster could plausibly be consolidated into fewer tools.
Each sub-domain has strong lifecycle coverage: entity resolution (resolve_entity, search_companies), company analysis (get_company_facts/filings, entity_profile, recent_changes, compare_entities), full CRUD for both memory and subscriptions, and an exhaustively covered prediction-market domain (research, edges, arb, fill risk, tracking, cross-venue). Minor gaps exist — there's no direct single-filing document fetch tool (search_within implies fetching via the gateway but no explicit getter), and the AI-visibility tools lack historical tracking — but these are workaround-able rather than blocking.