SyncPen MCP Server

syncpen_update

Update the title or content of an existing SyncPen document by specifying its document ID and providing new values for title, content, or both.

Instructions

Update an existing SyncPen document's title and/or content.

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": {
      "documentId": "<documentId>"
    },
    "name": "syncpen_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No	New title for the document
`content`	No	New content (replaces existing content)
`documentId`	Yes	The ID of the document to update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.4Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description does not disclose that content replaces existing content (though the input schema does), nor does it mention side effects, permissions, or other behavioral traits. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but is minimal.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action and resource.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema, yet the description does not mention return values or behavior (e.g., confirmation, asynchronous). It is minimally complete for a simple update but lacks expected outcome details.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by clarifying that title and/or content can be updated, but largely duplicates schema info. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the action (update) and resource (SyncPen document) and specifies what can be updated (title and/or content), distinguishing it from sibling tools like syncpen_create and syncpen_read.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It lacks context for appropriate use.

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