Purges cached data rows from a specified Data Provider in Web Intelligence documents to reduce storage size.
Purges cached data rows from a specific Data Provider to reduce document storage size.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dp_id | Yes | ||
| webi_doc_id | Yes |
| 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 behavioral burden for a destructive-sounding operation. It states the effect (removes cached rows, shrinks the document) but says nothing about reversibility, whether the purged data can be re-fetched via refresh_dp, required permissions, or any side effects on dependent reports.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though it is short precisely because it omits needed behavioral and parameter detail.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for an unannotated destructive mutation with two undocumented required parameters the description leaves out reversibility, permissions, and usage context. It is not complete enough for an agent to call it safely.
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 0% and neither parameter is described in the schema. The description vaguely gestures at the Data Provider ('dp_id') but never explains the two required IDs, their format, or how webi_doc_id scopes the purge, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (purges), resource (cached data rows) and target (a specific Data Provider) plus the intent (reduce document storage size). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_dp, refresh_dp, and delete_webi_doc, though it never names those alternatives.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no routing to alternatives such as refresh_dp (which presumably re-populates the cache) or delete_webi_doc. The 'to reduce storage size' clause only implies intent, it does not tell the agent when this is the right call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.