sync_nowTrigger an immediate sync from Notion. Checks for any posts with trigger statuses and queues sync jobs. Pro plan only. Has a 15-second cooldown between calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | ||
| triggered | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, meaning it performs an action but is not destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: it checks for posts with trigger statuses, queues jobs, has a cooldown, and requires Pro plan. This goes beyond the annotations and provides value.
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 sentences, each carrying essential information: action, trigger behavior, plan restriction, and cooldown. No wasted words, well front-loaded with the core purpose.
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's simplicity (no parameters, no request body), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, the statuses it checks, the plan requirement, and the cooldown. The output schema exists, so return values are structured. It could be slightly more detailed about what happens after the job is queued, but it's sufficient for a tool with no inputs.
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 has 0 parameters, so the schema covers everything trivially. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but the baseline is 4 for 0 params. The description adds context about the action, but since there are no parameters, it fully describes the invocation scenario.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Trigger an immediate sync from Notion.' It specifies the resource (Notion) and the action (sync), and it mentions checking for posts with trigger statuses and queueing sync jobs, which distinguishes it from other tools in the sibling list (e.g., publish_post, direct_publish).
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when an immediate sync is needed. It also mentions that it is 'Pro plan only' and has a '15-second cooldown between calls,' providing context for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives, just a slight gap.
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.
Most tools target clearly distinct resources and actions, separating creation, updates, deletions, list/get operations, and job monitoring. The main ambiguity is between direct_publish and publish_post, since both involve publishing, though their descriptions clarify creation vs. making a draft live.
The majority of tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern: create_post, get_post, list_posts, update_post, delete_post, publish_post, list_categories, list_tags. The exceptions are direct_publish and sync_now, which deviate from the pattern but remain understandable.
13 tools is well-scoped for a blogging and sync workflow covering posts, publishing, jobs, categories, tags, and settings. Each tool addresses a distinct part of the pipeline without redundancy or excessive granularity.
The surface covers the core post lifecycle, publishing jobs, sync triggers, WordPress metadata, and settings. The only notable gap is that direct_publish creates a WordPress post outside of Notion, while update_post explicitly syncs back from Notion, so updating a direct-published post may not be covered.