kinsta_edge-cache_clearClear the edge cache for a Kinsta environment by providing its environment ID. Returns an operation ID to track the cache purge request.
Clear the edge cache for an environment. Returns an operation_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| env_id | Yes | The environment ID | |
| clear_subdirectories | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With only openWorldHint in annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds value by stating that an operation_id is returned, implying an asynchronous operation. However, it does not explain side effects, scope of invalidation, or how long the operation might take.
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 description is concise and front-loaded: two short sentences, no filler, and the action is clear. It could be slightly longer to cover the optional parameters, but structurally it is efficient.
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 mutating tool with three parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits the semantics of two optional parameters and gives no usage guidance relative to sibling clear-cache tools. The operation_id hint is useful but not sufficient.
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 only 33%: env_id is documented, but url and clear_subdirectories are not. The description only echoes the environment scope and does not explain what url or clear_subdirectories mean or how they affect the cache-clear operation.
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 clearly states the verb ('Clear'), the resource ('edge cache'), and the scope ('for an environment'), and even names the returned result (operation_id). It is specific enough to distinguish from CDN or generic cache tools, though it does not explicitly position itself against sibling clear-cache 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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus kinsta_tools_clear-cache, kinsta_cdn_clear-cache, or kinsta_edge-cache_toggle. The agent is left to infer the correct choice from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.