think_clearReset the active thought chain to remove intermediate reasoning and start anew. This action prepares the assistant for fresh prompts without prior context.
Clear the thought chain. Prompts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description essentially restates the clearing action already implied by the tool name and the destructiveHint annotation. It adds no useful behavioral context such as irreversibility, what exactly is cleared, or side effects. The fragment 'Prompts.' provides no additional transparency and does not contradict the annotations.
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?
The useful part is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the stray 'Prompts.' is noise that does not earn its place and creates confusion. For a zero-parameter tool, a single clean sentence would have been sufficient and more effective.
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?
With no parameters and an output schema present, the definition is nearly sufficient for a simple operation. However, it never clarifies what a 'thought chain' includes, whether clearing is irreversible, or how this differs from related memory/reset tools, and the ambiguous 'Prompts.' adds potential confusion.
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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter details missing. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add in this dimension.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Clear the thought chain.' This distinguishes the tool from siblings like think and think_list by the clearing action. However, the appended fragment 'Prompts.' is ambiguous and slightly detracts from clarity.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as think, think_list, memory_forget, or other state-reset operations. There are no conditions, exclusions, or examples given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.