Staticbot MCP server

confirm_sync_run

Destructive

Confirm a paused sync run to apply destructive database migrations, or permanently skip them after explicit acknowledgment. Ensures sync completes and avoids divergence.

Instructions

Confirm a sync run that is PAUSED_FOR_REVIEW. Destructive database migrations (DROP TABLE, ALTER COLUMN) pause the sync for review before applying. Optionally skip the destructive migrations instead of applying them. WARNING: skipDestructive is PERMANENT, not a deferral. The run still completes, so the next sync diffs from this run's commit and the skipped migrations are never re-applied — they stay in the repo, absent from the live database, and nothing reports the divergence. Later migrations that assume the change will fail with errors that look unrelated. The API returns 400 unless acknowledged is true; show the user the returned consequence and get explicit approval, then re-send. Never set acknowledged just to clear the error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`runId`	Yes	Sync run ID
`projectId`	Yes	Connected project ID
`acknowledged`	No	Required with skipDestructive. Only set true after the user has been shown that the skip is permanent and has explicitly agreed.
`skipDestructive`	No	If true, skip destructive migrations instead of applying them

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	Parsed JSON response from the Staticbot public API

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.8.1Sep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses major behavioral consequences: skipDestructive is permanent, skipped migrations are never re-applied, the run still completes, divergence is unreported, and the API returns 400 without acknowledged=true. This is exactly the kind of hidden behavioral context an agent needs.

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 long but every sentence carries essential safety information. It front-loads the core purpose and then layers necessary warnings. No filler or redundant restatements of the schema.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's destructive potential, the description is complete: it covers the exact trigger state, the optional destructive-skip path, the permanence warning, the acknowledgement requirement, and the error behavior. An output schema exists, so return-value details are appropriately omitted.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical semantics beyond the schema: it explains that acknowledged must only be set after the user explicitly sees and approves the permanent consequence, and it expands on skipDestructive's permanent, non-deferral nature. This materially improves parameter understanding.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Confirm a sync run that is PAUSED_FOR_REVIEW." It also clarifies the optional skip behavior, making it easy to distinguish from related sync/migration tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly states when to use the tool: for sync runs paused due to destructive migrations. It also gives a strong when-not instruction: "Never set acknowledged just to clear the error." However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools such as retry_sync_run or skip_sync_run for handling other sync states.

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

Deploy Server