Trigger a scan of a Syncthing folder or subfolder to detect changes. Use folder ID and optional subpath to refresh file state on demand.
Trigger a scan of a folder or subfolder to detect changes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sub | No | Optional subfolder path to scan (relative to folder root) | |
| 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 behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the scan is asynchronous, whether it returns before scanning completes, whether it requires a running daemon, whether it depends on filesystem watching being enabled, or any side effects. For a trigger-style operation this is a notable gap.
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 action (trigger scan) comes first, followed by the effect (detect changes). Nothing is wasted.
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 two-parameter trigger with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the action and its effect. However, it omits the sync/async behavior and any preconditions an agent would need to call this correctly, leaving real gaps.
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%, so both parameters (folder ID and the optional relative sub path) are already documented in the schema. The description's 'folder or subfolder' wording adds nothing beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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+resource: 'Trigger a scan of a folder or subfolder to detect changes.' This is clearly an action tool distinct from the read-oriented siblings (get_status, list_folders, get_folder_status). It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 phrase 'to detect changes' implies the use case (force a fresh rescan when you suspect the filesystem state is stale), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to alternative tools. Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.