Retrieve detailed information about a specific file in Syncthing, including its local and global versions, to monitor file synchronization status.
Get detailed information about a specific file including local and global versions
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | Relative path to file within folder | |
| folder | Yes | Folder ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and mentioning 'local and global versions' hints at returned content, but there is no disclosure of permissions, side effects, sync-state semantics, or error behavior for missing files.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and scope stated immediately and no filler. Appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter read tool.
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 simple read tool with fully documented parameters and no annotations, the description covers what it does and gestures at the return content ('local and global versions'), which partly compensates for the absent output schema. Only edge-case behavior for missing or unsynced files is unaddressed.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'folder' (Folder ID) and 'file' (relative path within folder) documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific file') with the scope qualifier 'local and global versions'. This clearly distinguishes it from all siblings, which operate at the folder, device, or status level rather than on individual files.
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: call this when you need metadata about one file rather than folder-level summaries. However, the description never states when this is preferable to scanning a folder or listing folders, and there is no explicit alternative or precondition guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.