Logitech Sync MCP

by bouchecousue

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: connection check, coverage reports, environment sensors, inventory summary, occupancy, device issues, network inventory, places listing, and search. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent pattern: 'logitech_sync_' + verb_noun (e.g., check_connection, get_coverage_report, list_device_issues). Underscores are used uniformly, and verbs are appropriate for the action.
Tool Count5/5
9 tools is well-scoped for a monitoring/diagnostics server covering connection, reporting, inventory, issues, and search. Not excessive and each tool serves a specific need.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the main monitoring and diagnostic operations comprehensively: connection, coverage, environment, occupancy, issues, inventory, and search. Missing write/update operations, but the domain appears read-only, so minor gap.
Average 4.3/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 16, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds useful context: rows are classified, timestamps retained, sorted, and no renewal action occurs, reinforcing non-destructive behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with purpose, then details. No redundant sentences. Could be slightly more structured but overall concise and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a report tool with output schema, description covers classification, sorting, and non-action. It doesn't detail all parameters or return structure, but output schema handles that. Adequate given complexity.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 11 parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what schema already provides (e.g., reiterates as_of usage). 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?
First sentence clearly states the resource ('room/desk contracts, licenses, and device warranties') and action ('audit'). The description distinguishes from siblings by focusing on coverage aspects, not inventory, occupancy, or device issues.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides guidance on the as_of parameter for historical queries and notes that no renewal action occurs. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when to use this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive), description adds that missing fields remain absent (avoids hallucination), does not scan or change config, and returns bounded entries with metadata. Provides valuable behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise at 5 sentences covering purpose, search capability, behavioral note, actions not taken, and return type. No unnecessary words, but could be more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters, output schema, and sibling tools, description covers main search and filter capability, return types, and key behavioral notes. Omits mention of desk/room/licensed filters, but these are in schema. Adequately complete for an inventory listing tool.
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?
Schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions. Description adds a high-level summary of search and filter (query, interface_mode) but does not add new semantics. Baseline of 3 appropriate due to full schema coverage.
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?
Clearly states it lists network inventory with specific fields (IPs, MACs, hostnames, interfaces). Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on network rather than general inventory. Includes what it does and does not do.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Describes search and filter options but does not explicitly compare to sibling 'logitech_sync_search_inventory'. Lacks when-to-use and when-not-to-use advice. Provides some context (does not scan network), but no alternative tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds valuable context: stale cutoff only applies when last_disconnection_before provided, timestamps are UTC epoch, and explains return content (issue counts, reason codes, etc.).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise and front-loaded with main purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful detail without redundancy. Could benefit from better structure (e.g., bullet points for return content), but current form is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 13 parameters and output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects (stale cutoff, return items) and the tool's scope. Does not explain every health status or filter, but output schema likely covers that. Sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-described individually. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying the interaction between stale cutoff and last_disconnection_before parameter, which is not evident from schema alone.
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?
Clearly states it diagnoses offline, unhealthy, stale, or incomplete-peripheral devices. Differentiates from sibling tools like list_places or check_connection by focusing on device issues.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context on when to use this tool (diagnosing issues) and explains the last_disconnection_before parameter behavior, but does not explicitly compare with siblings or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses key behaviors: handling seatCount=0 to avoid division by zero, sorting by occupancy, filtering with thresholds, and noting live values. This adds significant context.
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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant text.
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 has 9 parameters and an output schema, the description covers core functionality, edge cases, sorting, filtering, return structure, and live nature. It is sufficiently complete.
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?
With 100% schema coverage, the description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning caller-supplied thresholds. 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 tool reports live room occupancy, capacity, utilization, and over-capacity state. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_coverage_report by focusing specifically on occupancy metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied (when occupancy data is needed), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide prerequisites/exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. Description adds context about bounded pagination, dynamic field requests, and non-modification, which are consistent and go beyond annotations. No contradiction.
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?
Description is concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy. The pagination guidance is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Description covers core workflow, pagination handling, and non-destructive nature. With output schema present, return values need not be detailed. Could mention more about output structure but is sufficient for agent understanding.
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?
Schema has 100% coverage (all parameters described in schema). Description provides overall workflow context but does not add substantial per-parameter semantics beyond what schema already provides. Baseline score of 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?
Description clearly states 'Search across place and device inventory as one agent-oriented workflow' and distinguishes from sibling tools like logitech_sync_list_places by specifying it searches both places and devices. The purpose is specific and actionable.
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?
Description provides explicit guidance: 'Use an exact id/serial for a specific entity or partial text for discovery.' It also explains pagination behavior with max_pages and result_offset. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it is not a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds significant context beyond annotations: explains it makes exactly one minimal GET request with limit=1 and empty projection, does not modify anything, and returns errors as actionable MCP tool errors. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, but description enriches.
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?
Description is concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. Appropriate length for the tool's simplicity.
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 low complexity (1 optional param, no nested objects, output schema exists), description is complete: covers behavior, error handling, return format, and use case. No gaps.
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?
Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage; description adds little beyond schema's own description of response_format. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema already documents the parameter well.
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?
Description clearly states the tool verifies live mTLS access or validates offline fixture, with specific verb 'verify' and resource 'Logitech Sync connection'. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are all about reports or inventory.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this first after setup', providing clear context for when to invoke. Describes two modes (live and fixture) with behavioral differences, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it is read-only and uses a projection optimized for identity, coverage, and health aggregation. It also mentions bounded pagination and that counts clearly indicate whether the scan completed. No contradiction with annotations.
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 concise at 4 sentences, front-loading the purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.
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 has 7 optional parameters with defaults, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior (read-only, aggregation, pagination bounding), and output nature (counters, ranked buckets). It is complete for an inventory summary tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% (all 7 parameters described in the schema). The description does not add significant parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it focuses on tool behavior and output. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides adequate documentation.
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 specifies the tool aggregates rooms, desks, coverage, device types/models/versions, status, and health. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like logitech_sync_search_inventory by saying 'without returning every raw device' and contrasts with deeper reports.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'Use this before deeper reports to understand inventory shape', providing direct guidance on when to use. It also notes pagination is bounded and counts indicate scan completion, helping the agent decide when this is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses critical behavior: does not invent safety thresholds, filtering only with metric and bounds. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; description adds context beyond annotations.
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?
Description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, then measurements, behavioral note, and return structure. Every sentence adds value, no filler.
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 output schema exists and high schema coverage, description covers tool purpose, behavioral constraints, and return components. Adequately complete for a read-only, idempotent tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds context about filtering behavior linking metric, minimum, maximum parameters, and lists supported measurements that hint at metric enum values.
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?
Description clearly states it aggregates Spot/Rally Board sensor readings with numeric filters, and lists supported measurements. It distinguishes from sibling tools like occupancy or inventory reports.
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?
Implies usage for environment sensor data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives. Sibling tools are listed but no direct comparison or exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotency, read-only, and non-destructive nature. The description adds that the tool never auto-follows cursors, transparently promotes detail_level for certain projections, and reports large response failures with guidance. No contradictions.
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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then adds behavioral details. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.
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 complexity (8 parameters, no required fields, output schema present), the description covers pagination, projection behavior, error handling, and response format comprehensively. It is fully complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value by explaining parameter interactions (e.g., projection promotion, detail_level auto-promotion, continuation usage) beyond the schema definitions.
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 'Fetch one controlled page of rooms/desks using the native continuation cursor,' specifying the verb, resource, and mechanism. The title reinforces this, and the tool is distinct from siblings like logitech_sync_search_inventory.
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 advises using this tool when exact API pagination or custom projections matter, and notes it never follows the cursor automatically. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but provides sufficient context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![logitech-sync-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bouchecousue/logitech-sync-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bouchecousue/logitech-sync-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![logitech-sync-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bouchecousue/logitech-sync-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bouchecousue/logitech-sync-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bouchecousue/logitech-sync-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server