invalidate_mcp_cache

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful mechanism-level behavior: it resets metadata in the DB to force reconnection, and works even without an MCP client active. This goes beyond what the annotations convey. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a scannable bulleted list of use cases and a clear explanation of parameter behavior. Every sentence adds meaningful guidance without redundancy.

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 the tool has only one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering idempotency/safety, the description fully equips an agent to decide when to call it and what will happen. It covers scope, side effects, and prerequisite-free behavior.

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 schema covers the sole mcp_server_id parameter 100% with a clear description, and the tool description further enriches semantics by explaining the difference between omitting the parameter (invalidate whole tenant cache) versus providing it (invalidate only that server). This adds real value over the schema alone.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Invalida o cache de tools MCP', and explains concrete trigger scenarios. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_mcp_server or test_connection by focusing on cache/metadata invalidation rather than server management or connection testing.

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 explicit 'Use quando' scenarios for when to invoke this tool, covering tool updates, server issues, and auth configuration changes. It also clarifies that it works without an active MCP client. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the usage cases are concrete and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.