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.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's mention of 'delete' and 'clear' reinforces but doesn't add major new behavioral info. The description adds some safety context ('sensitive data'), but overall the behavioral profile is well-covered by 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no extraneous words. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the action, providing usage guidance, and linking to sibling tools.
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 delete tool with one parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is complete. It explains when to use, what the parameter is, and how it relates to other tools, leaving no gaps.
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%, so the schema already describes the parameter 'key' as 'Memory key to delete'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline score of 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 tool deletes a previously stored memory by key. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'remember' (store) and 'recall' (retrieve), 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 explicitly states when to use: when context is stale, task is done, or to clear sensitive data. It also mentions pairing with 'remember' and 'recall', providing clear context and 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.
Several tools have near-identical purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as functionally identical, and six Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, polymarket_edge_tracker) overlap heavily in discovery, edge, and arbitrage roles. Company-research tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes) also blur boundaries, making misselection likely.
All names use lowercase snake_case with underscores, which is a consistent base convention. However, the lexical pattern varies: bare single words (current, forecast, remember, forget) coexist with verb_noun compounds (resolve_entity, validate_claim) and noun compounds (entity_profile, polymarket_edges). The lack of a uniform verb_noun structure makes the set less predictable, though still readable.
35 tools is well into the 'too many' range, and the server's name promises weather while only 4 of 35 tools (current, forecast, astronomy, marine) are weather-related — an extreme mismatch between the declared purpose and the actual surface. The remaining 31 tools form a general data/prediction-market platform that would be better served under a different server name.
Judged by its actual (non-weather) domain, the set is quite complete: generic routed lookup, grounded answer mode, deep research, entity resolution/profile/comparison, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, discovery, and feedback are all present. The weather subset covers current conditions, forecasts, marine, and astronomy, though it lacks historical weather and alert endpoints — a minor gap.