Skip to main content
Glama

ainote

by io.github.seunghan91

vault_sync

Destructive

Wrapper around vault file sync. action=list|pull|push to work against the primary vault. list/pull are paginated — narrow with path/since and follow next_cursor instead of pulling the whole vault. For push: WAF-bypass via content_b64 or content: '__B64__:...' prefix (mirrors sync_push).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoRelative path filter or target file path.
limitNoMax entries per page. list: default 200, max 1000. pull: default 25, max 100.
sinceNoISO 8601 timestamp for incremental pull.
actionNoSync action. Default list.
cursorNoPass `next_cursor` from the previous response to fetch the next page.
contentNoRequired for push (or `content_b64`). Prefix with '__B64__:' for WAF bypass.
content_b64NoOptional: base64-encoded content (use INSTEAD of `content`) for WAF-bypass on large bodies. Server decodes before storing.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / cursor
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Pass `next_cursor` from the previous response to fetch the next page.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Max entries per page. list: default 200, max 1000. pull: default 25, max 100.",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds pagination behavior and WAF-bypass details but does not clarify push semantics (overwrite vs create) or the return format of list/pull, relying partly on the reference 'mirrors sync_push'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences with clear structure: first defines purpose, second covers pagination and narrowing, third covers push specifics. No redundant information or unnecessary length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers pagination pattern and push bypass methods, but given no output schema, it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., does pull return file content or metadata?). Also missing error conditions, permission requirements, and explicit confirmation that push is destructive (though annotations hint at it).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context on action enumeration, pagination use with cursor/path/since, and the __B64__ prefix for WAF-bypass, which is marginal added value over schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it is a wrapper around vault file sync with three actions (list, pull, push) and targets the primary vault. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sync_read or vault_create by specifying this composite behavior, though it does not explicitly contrast with each sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides pagination guidance (narrow with path/since, use next_cursor) and notes WAF-bypass for push, but does not compare this tool to sibling sync tools (sync_read, sync_push, vault_read). An agent may not know when to choose vault_sync over simpler alternatives.

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

All ainote toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools clearly target distinct resources (tasks, docs, graph, sync, env_sync, handoffs, judgments, projects, vault). A few pairs could confuse, like sync_push vs vault_sync (which has a push action) and env_sync_write vs env_sync_txn_push, but descriptions mostly clarify boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are predominantly snake_case with a noun_verb pattern (e.g., sync_push, task_write), but there are notable inconsistencies: plural/singular mismatches (dev_docs_read vs dev_doc_write, tasks_read vs task_write), verb-first names (list_papers, get_setup_guide, judgment_submit), and a dotted sub-namespace (env_sync.secret_pull) mixed with flat names (env_sync_txn_push).

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is a large surface for a personal note/sync server. While it spans many domains (auth, tasks, docs, sync, env_sync, graph, etc.), the sheer number feels heavy and likely overwhelms agents with too many choices, especially when several tools are consolidated sub-action surfaces.

Completeness3/5

Most domains have reasonable CRUD coverage (tasks, dev docs, graph, sync, env_sync, vault). However, noticeable gaps exist: memory has no write tool (only read), papers only support listing (no create/update/delete), assumptions have write but no dedicated read or delete, and judgment is effectively submit-and-list only.

Resources