Nanostores MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable context about the tool's purpose (clearing cached index to enable fresh scans) and when to use it, which complements the annotations. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like temporary performance impact during re-scanning.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence provides usage context, the second explains the action and consequence. Every word serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded with the primary use case.

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 single-parameter tool with comprehensive annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about when and why to use it. It could slightly improve by mentioning what 'clears the cached project index' entails operationally, but overall it's highly complete for this tool's complexity level.

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% with the parameter well-documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, which already explains the optional rootUri parameter and its behavior when omitted. This meets the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('clears') and resource ('cached project index'), specifying it's for the project analysis cache. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning nanostores_scan_project as the complementary operation that will perform a fresh scan after cache clearance.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'when scan results seem stale or after making file changes that the server may not have detected.' It also specifies the alternative action (nanostores_scan_project) that should follow, creating clear operational sequencing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.