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 declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds context with 'clear sensitive data' and memory lifecycle pairing. It does not contradict annotations and provides some extra behavioral context.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and usage. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
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 single-parameter delete tool with clear annotations and schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and safety context. No output schema exists, but for this operation it is not critical.
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 parameter 'key' described as 'Memory key to delete.' The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies due to complete 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 clearly states the tool deletes a previously stored memory by key, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'remember' and 'recall' by explicitly addressing the delete operation.
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?
Provides explicit use cases ('when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data') and mentions complementary tools ('Pair with remember and recall'), offering clear guidance on when to use this tool versus 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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple 'ask_pipeworx' variants, several company analysis tools, and multiple prediction market tools. The set is large and not well-disambiguated, leading to potential confusion.
Naming conventions are mixed, with snake_case ('get_license'), camelCase ('ai_visibility_check'), and prefix-based ('pipeworx_*', 'polymarket_*'). No consistent pattern across the tool set.
35 tools is excessive for a server named 'Spdx License', which implies a focused license management tool. The actual number is more appropriate for a general data platform, but mismatched with the server name.
For the implied SPDX license domain, only a few basic tools exist (list, get, search). Missing crucial features like create, update, delete, or compare licenses. The surface is severely incomplete for the stated purpose.