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?
The description matches the destructiveHint annotation and adds context about clearing sensitive data. While annotations already indicate destructiveness, the description provides useful behavioral context without contradiction.
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 very concise with two sentences: the first clearly states the action and resource, the second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words.
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 and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and context sufficiently. The annotations and schema provide the remaining details.
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?
The schema has 100% coverage with a description for the 'key' parameter. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for schema coverage.
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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'a previously stored memory by key', and it distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'remember' and 'recall' which perform different operations.
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 guidance on when to use the tool (stale context, task done, clear sensitive data) and mentions pairing with other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it.
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.
Many tools have distinct purposes, but the cluster of Pipeworx tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) are very similar, causing potential confusion. The memory tools (remember, recall, forget) also add some overlap.
All tool names use lowercase with underscores, which is consistent. However, the similar Pipeworx tools have confusingly similar names (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded vs ask_pipeworx_beta), and the naming does not clearly distinguish their differences.
With 34 tools, the set is too large for a server ostensibly focused on Yu-Gi-Oh! cards. The majority of tools are unrelated domain-agnostic data tools, making the count feel bloated and unfocused.
The Yu-Gi-Oh! card tools are limited to lookup and search, missing obvious operations like creating or updating cards. The unrelated data tools, while many, do not form a coherent set for a single purpose, leaving gaps in both directions.