Manually refresh the iDux UI component information cache for Vue 3 (default) or Vue 2, enabling MCP tools to return accurate component data.
手动更新组件信息缓存（默认使用Vue3版本）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vueVersion | No | Vue版本（默认使用vue3） | vue3 |
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 and largely fails it: it does not say whether this invalidates or rebuilds the cache, how long it takes, whether it blocks subsequent tool calls, whether it requires network access, or what it returns on failure. Only the version default is disclosed, which is duplicated from the schema.
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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted clauses. It is efficient, though the trailing "(defaults to Vue3)" repeats what the schema already declares rather than adding new information.
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 side-effecting cache-refresh tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, an agent still lacks the essentials: whether this must be run before the read siblings, what state it leaves the cache in, and how completion is signaled. The rich enum/default schema covers only the one input, not the behavior around it.
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 a single enumerated parameter (vue2/vue3) that already documents its default. The description merely repeats that same default, adding no syntax, format, or consequence-level meaning beyond the schema. 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?
States a specific verb and resource: manually updating the component information cache, with the scope qualifier that it defaults to the Vue3 variant. It reads clearly against the read-oriented siblings (list/get/search components), though it never explicitly names or contrasts them.
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 only usage signal is the word "手动" (manual), which faintly implies forcing a refresh outside automatic updates, but there is no statement of when a refresh is needed, what condition triggers it, or which sibling tools depend on a fresh cache. No alternatives or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.