Clears the local message cache to free up space and ensure fresh data retrieval from Telegram.
Wipe the local message cache
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "clear_cache"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the action is local and cache-only, but it does not explain side effects such as whether the cache will be regenerated, whether pending messages are lost, or whether any authentication or permissions are needed. Given the destructive nature of 'wipe', this gap is significant.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence of six words with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description captures the core operation, but it omits behavioral context like reversibility or impact on other operations. The missing usage guidance and side-effect disclosure make the description partially incomplete for an agent deciding whether and when to invoke 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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully complete, so the description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly adds nothing unnecessary.
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 uses the specific verb 'Wipe' with the resource 'local message cache', clearly indicating the action and target. It is distinct from sibling tools like delete_message or export_cached_messages, though it does not explicitly name an alternative to disambiguate from.
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 guidance on when this tool should be used versus alternatives such as sync_messages or export_cached_messages. No context is provided about scenarios where clearing the cache is appropriate or when it should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.