List all sync processes owned by this SYNCDATE user with their current status and participating calendars.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_syncs"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's main contribution is naming the returned fields (status, participating calendars), which is useful since no output schema exists. It stops short of pagination behavior, result limits, or ordering, which would matter for a potentially unbounded list.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the scope and return content packed in without redundancy. Nothing to trim.
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 no-param read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and what each entry contains, which is most of what an agent needs. Minor gaps around result size/pagination prevent a 5.
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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless 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 and resource ('List all sync processes') and adds scope ('owned by this SYNCDATE user') plus returned content ('current status and participating calendars'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_sync_runs or get_sync, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by 'list all sync processes' — an agent can infer this is the enumerating counterpart to get_sync and list_sync_runs. However, no when-to-use condition, prerequisite, or named alternative is given, so the agent must infer routing on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.