Clears the local cache to force fresh data from the API.
Clear the local cache to force fresh data from the API
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cleared | Yes | True once the local cache has been cleared | |
| message | Yes | Human-readable confirmation |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.4Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "cleared": {
+ "description": "True once the local cache has been cleared",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "description": "Human-readable confirmation",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "cleared",
+ "message"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v1.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly discloses the mutation (clearing the cache) and the resulting behavior (forcing fresh data). It does not mention potential side effects, but since the annotation indicates destructiveHint is false, the operation is expected to be safe and reversible. This provides adequate transparency.
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, using a single sentence to convey the action, target, and purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no complex behavior), the description provides all necessary information for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly. The effect on data freshness is clearly stated, making the context complete.
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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). There is nothing to document, so the description fully covers the parameter space. A perfect score 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 clearly states the tool's function: clearing the local cache to force fresh data. It uses a specific verb ('Clear') and identifies the resource ('local cache') and the intended effect ('force fresh data from the API'). This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools.
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 (whenever a refresh of data is needed) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives. However, among the listed sibling tools, none serve a similar purpose, so the guidance is sufficient for correct selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.