List all configured Syncthing folders with their IDs, labels, and paths. Use it to inspect which folders are set up for synchronization.
List all configured folders with their IDs, labels, and paths
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, but it is a zero-parameter read-only list operation. The description does disclose the shape of the returned items (IDs, labels, paths), which is the main behavioral fact an agent needs; it says nothing about connection requirements or behavior when no folders exist.
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 no filler; the verb and scope come first and every clause earns its place by naming the returned fields.
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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return content well. The only mild gap is the absence of any note about prerequisites (e.g., a running Syncthing connection) or empty-result 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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is a bare empty object at 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.
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 ('List') and resource ('configured folders') and names the returned fields (IDs, labels, paths). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like syncthing_list_devices or syncthing_get_folder_status.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as syncthing_get_folder_status or syncthing_list_devices. Usage is only implied by 'List all configured folders', which is the minimum viable reading and offers no exclusions or routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.