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 clearing sensitive data and clarifies the tool operates on 'previously stored memory,' which is useful. No contradiction with annotations.
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 concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and follows with use cases and relationships to sibling tools. Every sentence earns its place.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers the action, use cases, and related tools. The presence of annotations and full schema coverage means no additional details are necessary.
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 key parameter described as 'Memory key to delete.' The description's 'by key' and 'previously stored memory' add minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the action: 'Delete a previously stored memory by key.' It specifies the resource (stored memory) and the key-based operation. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools remember and recall by explicitly noting the pairing, making the 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 description provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier.' It also points to complementary tools ('Pair with remember and recall'). However, it lacks an explicit 'when not to use' clause, which would make it a 5.
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 overlap significantly: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all handle factual queries, and the Polymarket suite (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, bet_research) has fuzzy boundaries. Even with long descriptions, agents will struggle to choose correctly among these clusters.
Naming is snake_case but inconsistent in style: some tools are verb-led (get_job, list_agencies, validate_claim), others are noun-led (polymarket_edges, ai_visibility_check, recent_changes). The pattern is predictable only in that everything is snake_case, but the verb/noun order varies.
36 tools is excessive for a server nominally called 'Usajobs'; the bulk of tools (Pipeworx, Polymarket, memory) are unrelated to the server's apparent purpose. The count feels like a bundled platform rather than a focused tool set.
For the USAJOBS subset, coverage is solid: search, get_job, and reference lists for agencies/occupational series/pay grades cover the read-only domain. However, the broader tool surface is sprawling and lacks a clear organizational principle, making completeness hard to assess; major data lookup features are present but via meta-tools rather than dedicated ones.