Clears cached TypeScript types for a specified project to force regeneration. Omit project name to clear all cached types.
清除指定项目的类型缓存，强制重新生成
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_type_cache"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectName | No | 项目名称，不传则清除所有缓存 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the core side effect—clearing the cache and forcing regeneration—but it does not mention reversibility, impact on unrelated projects when projectName is omitted, or any other regeneration side effects.
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 short sentence with every part earning its place: the action, the resource, the scope, and the forced regeneration. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.
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 single-optional-parameter cache-action tool, the description plus schema provide enough information for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It does not include fuller usage or side-effect context, which prevents a perfect score.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for projectName, including what happens when it is omitted. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 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?
The description gives a specific verb ('清除'/'clear'), a resource ('type cache'), and a scope ('specified project'), plus the outcome of forced regeneration. No sibling tool is described as clearing a type cache, so it is distinguishable from reload_swagger and the API listing/generation 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?
The intended use is implied: call this tool when the type cache needs clearing or regeneration. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to sibling alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.