Synchronize a Feishu knowledge base into a local search index for MCP use. Run incremental syncs routinely; rebuild the index when structure changes or corruption is suspected.
把飞书知识库同步到本地索引。日常用增量；结构大改或索引怀疑损坏时用 full。
Args: full: 清空本地索引后重建（不影响飞书内容）。 max_nodes: 本次最多同步多少个节点。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| full | No | ||
| max_nodes | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior by itself. It does disclose the critical risk: full sync clears the local index and rebuilds it without affecting Feishu content, which lets an agent judge the destructive scope. It does not mention permissions, whether the operation blocks or runs for a long time, cost, or what incremental sync actually checks.
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?
It is short and front-loaded: the purpose comes first, the mode selection comes second, and the per-argument notes come last. Each line adds information and none is redundant.
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?
An output schema exists, so the return values need not be explained. The two optional parameters are both documented, and the main hazard of full sync is disclosed. Only the distinction between the incremental and full sync semantics is thin (for example, what incremental sync compares or whether it is safe to re-run).
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 0%, so the description must supply the meaning of the parameters, and it does: full is explained, and max_nodes is described as the maximum number of nodes synced this time. However, the relationship between the two is unclear (for example, whether full sync ignores max_nodes), and the default of 2000 is not called out in the prose.
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 states a specific verb and resource: syncing a Feishu knowledge base into a local index. This clearly separates the tool from read-oriented siblings such as kb_search, kb_read, and kb_status. However, it does not explicitly claim that it differs from every sibling.
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?
It explicitly separates the two modes: use incremental sync for routine work, and use full sync when the structure has changed substantially or the index is suspected to be corrupted ("日常用增量；结构大改或索引怀疑损坏时用 full"). However, it gives no guidance on when to sync at all versus first calling kb_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.