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 provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds context like 'clear sensitive data' and is consistent. No contradictions.
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, zero waste. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidance, and pairing advice.
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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and good annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, and pairing effectively.
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?
Only one parameter 'key' with schema description 'Memory key to delete.' Schema coverage is 100% so baseline of 3 is appropriate. Description does not add extra semantics beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states 'Delete a previously stored memory by key.' The verb 'Delete' and resource 'memory by key' are specific. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting 'Pair with remember and recall.'
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data.' No exclusions but provides clear context and pairing advice.
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 server is named 'Twilio' but contains only 5 Twilio-specific tools mixed with 31 unrelated Pipeworx tools. An agent must distinguish between Twilio and Pipeworx functionality, and the tool descriptions are clear individually, but the overall set is confusing because the server name implies a focused Twilio service, not a general-purpose data platform with a few Twilio actions.
The Twilio tools follow a consistent 'twilio_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., twilio_send_sms, twilio_make_call), while the Pipeworx tools use a separate snake_case convention (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, deep_research). The two naming conventions are clearly distinct and do not mix, but the overall set is inconsistent because the server is named after one convention yet the majority of tools follow a different one.
With 36 tools, the count is high, but the critical issue is that only 5 tools are relevant to the Twilio server name. The remaining 31 tools belong to Pipeworx, a completely different domain. This is an extreme mismatch between the claimed server purpose (Twilio) and the actual tool set, making the tool count inappropriate.
For a Twilio-focused server, the tool set is very incomplete: it covers only basic SMS sending, call initiation, and listing messages/calls. Missing are phone number management, media handling, conversation features, and other common Twilio operations. The Pipeworx tools are comprehensive for their own domain, but they are irrelevant to the Twilio server's stated purpose, leaving significant gaps.