Manage resource cache by clearing, inspecting, invalidating, or cleaning up entries to free memory and ensure fresh data for architectural decision analysis.
Manage MCP resource cache (clear, stats, cleanup)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Specific cache key to invalidate (for invalidate action) | |
| action | Yes | Cache management action to perform |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description simply restates the action labels without explaining side effects, what gets cleared, whether stats returns live data, or how invalidation affects the cache. Annotations already cover read-only feedback, idempotency, and destructiveness, and the description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the enum values.
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 concise sentence with no filler and the main actions are front-loaded. It earns a 4 rather than 5 mainly because it omits one of the defined actions, reducing completeness without affecting brevity.
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 low-complexity tool with two parameters and full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. It does not explain the meaning of each action's behavior or what the output looks like for stats, but given the simple structure and strong schema, this is an acceptable gap rather than a critical one.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters and the action enum. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond naming a few actions, so it meets the baseline but does not go further.
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 names a specific resource (MCP resource cache) and the main actions (clear, stats, cleanup), which distinguishes it from all sibling tools that focus on ADRs, masking, research, or memory. However, it omits 'invalidate' from the action enum, so the purpose is clear but slightly incomplete.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when it is appropriate to clear/cleanup/invalidate, or any exclusions. The sibling list contains no other cache-management tool, but the description still does not communicate the operational context or decision rules for selecting it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.