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, so the description adds limited new behavioral context. It reinforces the destructive nature with 'Delete' and adds the nuance of clearing sensitive data, but doesn't go beyond annotations significantly.
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, front-loaded with the action, and every word earns its place. No fluff or redundancy.
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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage conditions, and complementary tools. Annotations cover safety aspects, so no critical gaps remain.
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 only parameter 'key' well-described as 'Memory key to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Delete a previously stored memory by key.' This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 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?
The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data.' It also references related tools ('Pair with remember and recall'), though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use them instead.
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 are near-indistinguishable: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research have overlapping routing behavior. discover_tools vs suggest_questions and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence also create boundary ambiguity, making misselection likely for agents.
Names mix bare verbs (recall, remember, forget), brand-prefixed nouns (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges), and descriptive phrases (generate_llms_txt, scan_competitor_ai_presence). There is no consistent verb_noun or prefix convention, and the server name 'Wolfram Alpha' does not match the dominant pipeworx_/polymarket_ naming.
At 34 tools, the set exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels heavy even for a broad data platform. Several unrelated add-ons (memory trio, ai_visibility, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) could live in separate servers, contributing to bloat and diluting the core purpose.
The data-research and prediction-market surfaces are fairly thorough (routing, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, subscriptions), but the Wolfram Alpha core is thin—only short_answer, full_query, and wolfram_compute—with no step-by-step solutions, units catalog, or history. The mismatched server name and unrelated tools indicate an incoherent scope with notable gaps.