Purge stored search, fetch, or crawl results to prevent stale data. Use when researching fast-moving topics that need current information.
Purge the search and/or fetch result cache. Useful when researching fast-moving topics where cached results from the past hour may be stale.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | Which cache to clear: search results, fetched pages, crawl manifests, or all (default all) | all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Purge' clearly signals a destructive operation, which is critical, but it does not mention whether the purge is irreversible, global versus per-user, or whether it affects in-flight requests. This is a minimum viable disclosure.
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 two tight sentences: the first states the action and resource, the second gives the practical use case. There is no repetition of schema details, no padding, and the most salient information is front-loaded.
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 simple tool with one optional, well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description and schema together provide enough to call it correctly. The main gap is the unmentioned crawl cache and lack of side-effect details, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 100%, and the 'target' parameter is fully documented with an enum, a default value, and a clear explanation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 identifies a specific action (purge) and resource (search/fetch result cache), making it easy to distinguish from the search/fetch sibling tools. However, it omits the 'crawl' cache in the prose, slightly narrowing the stated scope relative to the schema's target enum.
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?
It gives an explicit, practical trigger: use when researching fast-moving topics where cached results from the past hour may be stale. It does not discuss when not to use it or alternatives, but this is a maintenance tool with no real substitute, so the situational guidance is enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.