ai contact center · stub

Whether a cached tool list defeats a change notification

Verified 2026-09-05 · 14 claims · sources tier 1

Also known as cacheScope, notifications/tools/list_changed, ttlMs.

Stub. This topic has 14 verified claims and no published article. The claims below are exactly what the corpus holds today.

So far, no summary has been generated for this topic. The claims below are what the corpus currently holds.

See also

Depends on

Related to

Referenced by

Claims

#ClaimStatusConfidenceVerified
1If the time-to-live field is absent, clients should assume a default of 0, treat the response as immediately stale, and rely on their own caching heuristics or on notifications.
Model Context Protocol specification 2026-07-28, Caching · Time-to-Live (TTL) Field, bullet 3
fact0.902026-09-05
2The Model Context Protocol caching specification requires servers to provide a time-to-live value of 0 or greater whenever they include a TTL field.
Model Context Protocol specification 2026-07-28, Caching · Time-to-Live (TTL) Field, bullet 3
fact0.902026-09-05
3A server that computes a per-caller tools list and marks the response with a public cache scope would let one caller's authorized tool set be served to another caller from a shared cache.
Model Context Protocol specification 2026-07-28, Caching · Security Considerations combined with the server tools Capabilities section
inference0.602026-09-05
4The caching page's own sequence diagram walks through a tools list cache being invalidated by a notifications/tools/list_changed message before the time-to-live expires.
Model Context Protocol specification 2026-07-28, Caching · Mermaid sequence diagram following Interaction with Notifications, read from the raw body
fact0.902026-09-05
5The caching page's sequence diagram illustrates the tools-list cache-invalidation scenario using an example time-to-live of 300000 milliseconds, which is illustrative rather than a specified default.
Model Context Protocol specification 2026-07-28, Caching · Mermaid sequence diagram following Interaction with Notifications, read from the raw body
fact0.902026-09-05
6In the sentence that connects notification to cache invalidation, the word invalidates is bolded and the following should is lowercase and unstyled, unlike every other RFC 2119 keyword on the page.
Model Context Protocol specification 2026-07-28, Caching · Interaction with Notifications, closing paragraph, raw markup
field-pattern0.602026-09-05
7The caching page publishes a floor for the time-to-live field and no ceiling and no recommended default magnitude for any cacheable operation.
Model Context Protocol specification 2026-07-28, Caching · Time-to-Live (TTL) Field, whole section
fact0.902026-09-05
8None of the 4 specification pages states what a client should, must or may do on determining that it missed a list changed notification.
Model Context Protocol specification 2026-07-28, Caching · Whole documents: caching, server tools, subscriptions, resources
fact0.902026-09-05
9The Model Context Protocol caching page states that a relevant notification received while a cached response is still fresh invalidates that cached response, which should then be considered immediately stale.
Model Context Protocol specification 2026-07-28, Caching · Interaction with Notifications, closing paragraph
fact0.902026-09-05
10The caching page's Interaction with Notifications section never uses the words subscribe, subscription or subscriptions/listen; it names listChanged and notification and never names the mechanism that delivers them.
Model Context Protocol specification 2026-07-28, Caching · Interaction with Notifications section
fact0.902026-09-05
11The caching page states that a response marked with a public cache scope may be shared between callers even when it came from an authenticated endpoint, and its worked example is an authenticated tools list call.
Model Context Protocol specification 2026-07-28, Caching · Security Considerations, opening paragraph
fact0.902026-09-05
12A server may provide a time-to-live without advertising listChanged, in which case the client relies entirely on time-to-live freshness with no invalidation signal at all.
Model Context Protocol specification 2026-07-28, Caching · Interaction with Notifications, bullet 1
fact0.902026-09-05
13A client whose requested toolsListChanged filter is silently dropped from the subscription acknowledgment receives no notification, so the caching page's invalidation scenario never applies to it even though the server advertised listChanged.
Model Context Protocol specification 2026-07-28, Subscriptions · Acknowledgment section combined with the caching page's Interaction with Notifications
inference0.602026-09-05
14The tools list result set may vary by the authorization presented on the request, because credentials are per-request input rather than connection state.fact0.902026-09-05

Sources

tier 1 standards and regulators

Model Context Protocol specification 2026-07-28, Caching

Model Context Protocol project · 2026-07-28 · accessed 2026-09-05

tier 1 standards and regulators

Model Context Protocol specification 2026-07-28, Server Features: Tools

Model Context Protocol project · 2026-07-28 · accessed 2026-09-05

tier 1 standards and regulators

Model Context Protocol specification 2026-07-28, Subscriptions

Model Context Protocol project · 2026-07-28 · accessed 2026-09-05

Cite this page

APA

WarmTransfer. (2026, September 5). Whether a cached tool list defeats a change notification. WarmTransfer. https://warmtransfer.net/knowledge/mcp-cache-versus-notification

BibTeX

@misc{warmtransfer-mcp-cache-versus-notification,
  title  = {Whether a cached tool list defeats a change notification},
  author = {{WarmTransfer}},
  year   = {2026},
  url    = {https://warmtransfer.net/knowledge/mcp-cache-versus-notification},
  note   = {Verified 2026-09-05}
}