Clear the cached optimization results to free up memory and ensure subsequent tool outputs are generated fresh.
Clear the optimization result cache
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": "clear_cache"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'clear' which implies a destructive, likely irreversible action, but does not mention side effects, performance impact, or whether other cached data is affected. The complete lack of detail on consequences is a significant gap for a mutation 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource. However, it is so brief that it omits important context, though for a zero-parameter tool this brevity is acceptable.
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?
Despite the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), it lacks essential context: no indication of when to use it, what happens to the cache, or how it differs from related tools like cleanup_expired_cache. An agent cannot reliably determine if this is the right action without additional information.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. Since schema coverage is trivially 100% and there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description is adequate.
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 action ('clear') and the target ('optimization result cache'), making the core purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling cleanup_expired_cache, which also relates to cache clearing, so it's not fully differentiated.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cleanup_expired_cache or get_cache_stats. No context is given about scenarios where clearing the entire cache is appropriate, nor any exclusions or recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.