census_list_sync_runsList sync run history (each run's status, records processed, timing). Filter by sync_id. Census: GET /sync_runs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-based) for pagination. | |
| sync_id | No | Filter runs to a single sync id. | |
| per_page | No | Number of records per page. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds context about what fields are returned (status, records, timing). However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or any non-obvious side effects. The description adds some value but is not comprehensive.
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?
Two sentences with no redundant information. The description is front-loaded with the core action and details, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 (list with filter and pagination), the description covers the essential return fields and filter option. Though output schema is absent, the description suffices for basic understanding. Lacks only a hint about pagination default behavior.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description only re-emphasizes filtering by sync_id without adding new information about parameter formatting, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'List sync run history' with specific details on what is returned (status, records, timing) and mentions filtering capability, distinguishing it from sibling tools like census_get_sync_run and census_list_syncs.
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 only mentions 'Filter by sync_id' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other list tools or the get tool. No context on prerequisites or alternatives is given.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource type (destination, model, source, sync, sync run, segment, workspace) with clear get/list/trigger actions. No overlapping purposes; agents can easily distinguish which tool to use for a given operation.
All tools follow a consistent 'census_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., census_get_destination, census_list_syncs). The only action tool, census_trigger_sync, also fits the pattern. No mixing of casing or verb styles.
13 tools is appropriate for a data integration platform that manages multiple resource types (destinations, sources, models, syncs, etc.). It's slightly on the higher side but well-scoped for the domain.
The set covers get, list, and trigger operations, but lacks create, update, and delete for resources. While Census API may not expose mutating operations via MCP, the surface is incomplete for full lifecycle management.