Clear all items from a collection's L0 cache to reset cached data and return an ok/error status. Specify the collection to target.
Clear / purge all items in the L0 Cache for a specific collection. Returns ok/error status object.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collection | Yes | The name of the collection. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully scopes the blast radius ('all items in the L0 Cache') and discloses the return value ('ok/error status object'), but never states that the operation is irreversible, what happens to cached-but-unsaved data, or whether permissions or a pre-existing collection are required.
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 short sentences with the destructive action and its scope front-loaded, followed by the return contract. The 'Clear / purge' slash hedge is minor redundancy but nothing is wasted.
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?
Adequate for a one-parameter tool: it names the target, the scope, and the return shape. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should explain what the L0 cache is relative to other tiers and whether purging affects subsequent searches.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'collection' parameter is already documented in the schema as 'The name of the collection.' The description only restates that the clear is scoped to a specific collection, adding no format or naming-convention detail beyond the schema baseline.
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 ('clear/purge') and resource ('all items in the L0 Cache for a specific collection'), which an agent can distinguish from cache_stats or cache_config by scope. It does not name a sibling alternative explicitly, but the target is unambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the description never says why an agent would purge the L0 cache versus using cache_config, cache_stats, or rebuild_index. Contextual applicability is left entirely to inference from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.