refreshExplain whether fresher data can be had for an entity. It changes nothing: flow-backed answers are already refetched whenever the platform's version of the flow moves, and this server never makes the platform re-extract from the source system.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | model name; omit for the default | |
| entity | Yes | entity to explain freshness for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / entity / descriptionPrevious value: -"entity whose upstream data should be refreshed"New value: +"entity to explain freshness for"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: that flow-backed answers are refetched whenever the platform's flow version moves, and that the server never makes the platform re-extract from the source. This explains the underlying data-freshness behavior rather than just restating safety.
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 purpose statement and followed by behavioral caveats. The second sentence is somewhat long but each clause earns its place by preempting the wrong assumption suggested by the name 'refresh'.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and behavior sufficiently that an agent can call it correctly. It is only incomplete in that it doesn't hint at what a freshness answer looks like or how it relates to data_status.
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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents 'entity' and 'model'. The description mentions the entity concept but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details for either parameter, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource: "Explain whether fresher data can be had for an entity." This overcomes the potentially misleading tool name ("refresh") by making clear it is an explanation, not an action. However, it never differentiates itself from the sibling data_status, leaving the agent to infer which freshness-related tool to pick.
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 second sentence functions as a strong "when-not" by stating the tool changes nothing and never forces re-extraction, which warns the agent not to expect a refresh action. But it never tells the agent when to prefer this over data_status or any other sibling, so usage is only implied.
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.