argocd_invalidate_cluster_cacheInvalidates a cluster's cache to clear phantom OutOfSync or Unknown health without removing real resources.
Invalidate a cluster's cached resources — the standard fix for phantom OutOfSync or Unknown health. Removes nothing real.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cluster | Yes | Cluster name, or server URL (starts with http) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations mark this as a non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive operation. 'Removes nothing real' adds genuine value by reconciling the apparent write (readOnlyHint=false) with destructiveHint=false and reassuring the agent that the cache drop is safe and repeatable. It doesn't mention scope (whole cluster vs. one app) or any auth requirements.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the effect front-loaded before the corrective guidance. Every clause carries 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, this is nearly complete — the symptom it fixes and its harmlessness are both stated. A note on scope or the expected result (e.g., subsequent refresh behavior) would close the remaining gap.
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% and the single 'cluster' parameter already documents the name-or-server-URL format. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?
Specific verb (invalidate) plus resource (cluster's cached resources) that no sibling shares — the other tools read or mutate applications/clusters directly, none invalidate cache. An agent can distinguish this from argocd_get_cluster or argocd_sync_application immediately.
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?
States the trigger condition explicitly: 'the standard fix for phantom OutOfSync or Unknown health.' That tells an agent when to reach for it, but no alternatives are named and no exclusion (e.g., don't use when the app genuinely is OutOfSync) is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.