cache_statusReport what the local response cache holds by source and its database file location. Use it to diagnose stale figures or determine if a screen will hit the network.
Report what the local response cache holds, by source, and where the database file lives. Useful when a figure looks stale or when you want to know whether the next screen will hit the network.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing what the operation is local and diagnostic in nature and that it surfaces the database file path, which the annotations do not. It says nothing about cost, latency, or whether the cache is mutated, but for a local read that is minor.
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?
Two sentences, zero padding, and the what-is-it clause is front-loaded ahead of the when-to-use clause. Every sentence carries distinct 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 zero-arg, read-only, no-output-schema tool this is nearly sufficient: it states what gets reported (cache contents by source, DB file path) and when to reach for it. The one loose end is relationship to cache_clear, which the description never references, leaving the read-vs-clear choice implicit.
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 arguments, so there are no parameter semantics to explain and the schema is trivially complete. Baseline for a no-parameter tool applies; no compensation is needed.
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 gives a specific verb (report) and a precisely scoped resource: the local response cache, broken down by source, plus the database file location. That is far more than a restatement of the title. It stops short of naming the obvious sibling (cache_clear), so the agent must infer the distinction between inspecting and clearing.
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?
It supplies concrete triggering conditions: 'when a figure looks stale' or 'when you want to know whether the next screen will hit the network.' That tells the agent when this tool is the right call. It does not state when not to use it or point to cache_clear as the alternative, so it is context-rich but not fully routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.