artifacts_discardClear the in-memory Artifacts workspace for this MCP session (does not delete cloud graphs or the Plans workspace).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "artifacts_discard"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the operation is in-memory only, session-scoped, and non-destructive to cloud graphs or the Plans workspace. This is useful context beyond what the tool name alone conveys, though it could additionally mention what happens after clearing or whether any confirmation is needed.
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 entire description is one focused sentence with the action and scope front-loaded. The parenthetical exclusion adds essential safety information without wasting words. Every part earns its place.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the target, the scope, and the key exclusions. It lacks an explicit statement about whether the operation is reversible or what the caller should expect in return, but those are minor gaps for such a simple discard operation.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter behavior. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter ambiguity exists.
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 uses a specific verb ('Clear'), names the exact resource ('in-memory Artifacts workspace'), and scopes it to the MCP session. It also distinguishes itself by explicitly excluding cloud graphs and the Plans workspace, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 implies when to use the tool: when the agent wants to reset the current in-memory Artifacts workspace. It also clarifies what the tool will not do, which helps prevent misuse. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when another sibling tool such as roadflow_discard should be used 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.