Flush one DNS name from the BIND 9 cache to remove stale or incorrect records; cache state cannot be restored afterward.
[WRITE] Flush one DNS name from cache; cache state cannot be restored.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| target | No | ||
| dry_run | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the "[WRITE]" tag and the irreversibility warning largely restate structured data. The description does add specificity about what is destroyed (one cached DNS name), but omits the existence of a dry_run safety path and any permission or target-scoping requirements.
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?
A single sentence with the operation class tag front-loaded, then the action, scope, and consequence. No filler, and the destructive warning is placed where it will be read before invocation.
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 destructive three-parameter mutation with no output schema and zero schema documentation, the description leaves the agent without the information needed to invoke it safely or correctly. Specifically, `target` and `dry_run` are undocumented anywhere in the definition.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it only implies the required `name`. It says nothing about `target` (presumably which server/view to flush) or `dry_run`, which is the most safety-relevant parameter for a destructive operation.
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?
"Flush one DNS name from cache" gives a specific verb (flush), resource (DNS cache entry), and scope (one name), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the zone/status-oriented sibling tools. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling, so it lands at a clear-but-not-exemplary 4.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (BIND server/target selection), and no mention of alternatives such as re-querying or reloading a zone. The warning about irreversibility hints at caution but does not tell an agent when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.