Clear the WordPress object cache to resolve caching issues and ensure content updates appear immediately.
Flush the WordPress object 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": "wp_cache_flush"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Flush' implies a destructive operation that clears cached data, the description doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, whether it affects site performance temporarily, what happens to persistent vs transient cache, or if there are any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point.
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?
Given this is a mutation tool (flushing cache implies data modification) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should address behavioral aspects like permissions needed, performance impact, what types of cache are affected, and whether the operation is reversible. The current description provides only basic purpose without necessary operational context.
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% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is given since no parameter documentation is required, and the description doesn't attempt to describe non-existent parameters.
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 action ('Flush') and the target resource ('WordPress object cache'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'wp_rewrite_flush', which also performs a flushing operation but on a different resource (rewrite rules vs object cache).
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when flushing the object cache is appropriate (e.g., after plugin updates, cache invalidation needs) or contrast it with related tools like 'wp_rewrite_flush' for different cache types. There's only an implied context from the tool name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.