maa_cleanupClears selected MAA cache types to reclaim storage and fix stale cache data. Pass one or more cache targets to remove only the intended entries.
清除 MAA 缓存
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| targets | No | 要清除的缓存类型，多个用空格分隔 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. '清除' implies a destructive mutation, but nothing is said about what exactly is removed, whether the removal is recoverable, whether Ama is required to be stopped, or what side effects occur. One phrase that essentially restates the title is far below the bar for an unannotated destructive tool.
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 short sentence with zero filler, and the action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity is really under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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?
The tool is simple (one optional param, output schema present), but with no annotations a description of a cache-purging operation needs to disclose at least the scope of what is deleted. As written it does not provide enough for an agent to call it with confidence.
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 single 'targets' parameter carries a 100% schema description ('要清除的缓存类型，多个用空格分隔'), so the format is fully documented in structured data. The description adds nothing beyond it, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is complete.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (clear MAA cache), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from lifecycle siblings like maa_startup or maa_update_cli. It does not, however, explain how it differs from maintenance-adjacent siblings (maa_update, maa_hot_update, maa_self_update) beyond the word 'cache'.
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 indication of when to clear the cache, when not to, or what alternative to use. An agent has no way to know whether this is routine cleanup or a recovery action, nor whether it should precede maa_update or maa_hot_update.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.