Invalidate cached Parsley API responses for this token after user approval when data seems stale, so subsequent reads refetch from the API.
Clear the cached Parsley API responses for this token. GET responses are cached for 24 hours; call this if you suspect data is stale. Ask the user for permission before calling, since subsequent reads will refetch from the API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the 24-hour GET cache TTL, the fact that reads will refetch afterward, and the instruction to obtain user permission first. Annotations already cover idempotence and non-destructiveness, so the description complements rather than repeats them.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then TTL/trigger, then the permission caveat. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Complete enough for a parameterless cache-control tool: it explains what is cleared, the cache lifetime, and the user-consent requirement. No output schema exists but none is needed for this action.
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 parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the schema. Baseline for a 0-param tool.
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?
States a specific verb ('Clear') and resource ('cached Parsley API responses for this token'), with clear scope. No sibling tool interacts with the cache, so the purpose is unambiguous in context.
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?
Explicitly says when to use it: 'call this if you suspect data is stale.' No alternative tool exists among siblings for cache management, so no exclusion routing is needed, but the trigger condition is clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.