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 description aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) but adds only minor context ('clear sensitive data'). Annotations already cover the key behavioral traits, so the description adds marginal value beyond them.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance and relationships. No extraneous content.
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 deletion tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage contexts, and pairing with siblings. It is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool, though it could briefly mention idempotency or return behavior.
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 a clear description for the 'key' parameter ('Memory key to delete'). The description does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so baseline score 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 'Delete a previously stored memory by key', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning pairing with 'remember' and 'recall', making the role in the memory triad clear.
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?
Provides explicit scenarios for use: stale context, task completion, clearing sensitive data. Also advises pairing with related tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives for non-deletion operations.
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 five WooCommerce tools are clearly distinct, but the remaining 31 Pipeworx tools contain several overlapping query/research entry points (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) that an agent would struggle to tell apart without deep inspection. The context of the server also misleads: an agent expecting WooCommerce tools must navigate a much larger unrelated research toolkit.
The woo_* tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern, but the bulk of the set uses wildly mixed conventions: bare verbs (forget, recall, subscribe), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), generic names (ask_pipeworx, discover_tools), and vendor-prefixed variants (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges). There is no single naming system across the server.
36 tools is far too many for a server whose apparent purpose is WooCommerce store access; only 5 tools actually relate to WooCommerce. The remaining 31 are an unrelated general-purpose data research suite, making the toolkit feel bloated and mis-scoped.
The WooCommerce surface is severely incomplete: it only supports read operations (get/list for products, orders, customers). There are no create, update, delete, refund, or other write operations, so an agent cannot actually manage a store. The unrelated Pipeworx tools do not fill these gaps.