Clear MCP Cache

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=false), so the bar is lower. The description usefully names exactly which caches are affected and that they are in-memory (non-persistent), which is real added context; it stops short of stating the consequence (subsequent calls will refetch from upstream APIs).

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 front-loaded sentence with the action first and the scope second. Every word earns its place; nothing is padded or redundant.

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 zero-parameter maintenance utility with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is cleared and that it is the server's in-memory cache. It could add a sentence on expected effect (cache refill on next request) but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly introduces no parameter discussion, since there is nothing to document beyond the schema's empty properties object.

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') and a precisely scoped resource ('this MCP server's in-memory Hypixel, Mojang, and wiki response caches'). No sibling tool touches caches, so an agent can immediately tell this apart from the resolve/skyblock/wiki lookup tools.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no indication of when a caller should invalidate caches (e.g., after data changes, before a freshness-critical query), no mention of cost, and no alternative to compare against. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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