No. Claude.ai is a consumer product — you have no access to the API layer underneath it. cache_control is an API-level feature only. This plugin works exclusively when you're making direct Anthropic API calls, either through the SDK in your own code or through MCP-compatible clients like Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf, etc.
How would it work when you’re making Anthropic API calls? Wouldn’t an LLM have to invoke this, and as such, somehow the LLM needs to invoke this MCP tool (which is done using a tool call ie an answer from the LLM) before sending the request to Anthropic?
I am so confused why you chose an MCP server to solve this, wouldn’t a regular API at least have some merit in how it could be used (in that it doesnt require an LLM to invoke it) ?
I was sharing an old Turkish pop track on Spotify (“Füsun Önal – Ah Nerede”, 2004). Instead of the expected album art, Instagram showed a completely unrelated person’s Instagram profile screenshot, basically a silent injected ad.
I dug into how Spotify generates Instagram story assets and mapped possible attack vectors in the legacy catalog pipeline. Curious if anyone’s seen similar behavior with older metadata ingestion paths.
