Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-remnawave

mcp-remnawave

by Nurullaev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

snippets_sync

Sync a named snippet to all config profiles that reference it, ensuring configurations stay updated.

Instructions

Sync a snippet to the config profiles using it (async, 202)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "snippets_sync"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesSnippet name to sync

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that the operation is asynchronous and returns HTTP 202. The word 'sync' implies mutating config profiles, but the description doesn't explain what synchronization does (overwrite, generate, partial failure) or whether it is reversible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a useful parenthetical; every word earns its place. No repetition of schema or tool name.

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?

For an async mutating operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description doesn't fully explain effects on config profiles or what a caller should expect after the 202. It is adequate for a simple one-parameter tool but leaves the main side-effect semantics implicit.

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 coverage is 100% (name is documented as 'Snippet name to sync'), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. This meets the baseline but provides no extra context such as name format or behavior when the snippet does not exist.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description states a specific action ('Sync'), the object ('a snippet'), and the target ('config profiles using it'), which clearly separates it from CRUD siblings like snippets_update or snippets_delete. The parenthetical about async/202 also adds scope.

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?

The intended use is implied: it should be invoked when a snippet's changes need to be propagated to config profiles that reference it. However, it never explicitly says when to use sync instead of snippets_update or config_profiles_update, and there is no mention of when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools