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 idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about clearing sensitive data but does not elaborate on error behavior or irreversibility beyond the annotation.
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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by usage guidance, with no redundant phrasing.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description provides adequate context. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and related tools, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it.
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% and the schema describes 'key' as 'Memory key to delete'. The description repeats the key usage but adds no new semantic detail, so baseline 3 applies.
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 action 'Delete', the resource 'memory', and the method 'by key'. This 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?
The description explicitly lists conditions for use: 'context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'. It also mentions pairing with remember and recall, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools for non-use cases.
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.
Several tools overlap in purpose, notably the ask_pipeworx family (stable, beta, grounded all route identically) and random_card vs draw_cards for straightforward draws. The polymarket and research tools also share fuzzy boundaries that an agent could easily misroute.
All names use snake_case and readable English, but the set mixes verb-led (ask_pipeworx, recall), noun-led (random_card, recent_alerts), and prefix-family names (polymarket_*, entity_*) with no single structural pattern. Readable but not cohesive.
35 tools is well above the typical well-scoped range and far more than a tarot-focused server would justify. The excess is externally provided Pipeworx functionality that dominates the tarot tools it sits over.
For the tarot domain, the set covers the full usage loop: getting, drawing, and searching cards are all present. The surrounding data/research/memory tools also cover their own domains exhaustively, with no obvious dead ends.