mcp-syncnology

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinctly different resource or action: file browsing vs system monitoring vs backup status vs download tasks vs camera listing vs logs. No two tools appear to overlap in purpose, making selection unambiguous.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools share the 'syncnology_' prefix and follow an action_noun pattern (list, get, create, delete). Minor deviations exist such as 'backup_task_status' and 'system_logs' instead of 'get_backup_task_status' and 'get_system_logs', but overall the naming is consistent and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
15 tools is well within the ideal range for a server covering multiple NAS subdomains. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming.
Completeness3/5
The toolset covers core NAS operations—file listing/info/create/delete, system stats, backup task queries, and download management. However, gaps exist: no file upload/download content transfer, no backup task creation/modification, and camera support is limited to listing. These are notable but not fatal for many workflows.
Average 3.7/5 across 15 of 15 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 6 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation via the verb 'Get', but does not mention behavior such as the default count of entries returned, any throttling or pagination, or whether special permissions are required. The lack of detail beyond the basic action leaves the agent with limited understanding of side effects or constraints.
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 one short, clear sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key information and wastes no words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate but still leaves gaps. It does not mention the count parameter or how to control the number of returned entries, and provides no context on when to use this tool versus siblings. The output schema may cover return values, but the description alone does not fully equip an agent to invoke it correctly in all scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the sole parameter 'count' at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's default value, failing to clarify what 'count' controls (e.g., number of entries to return). The parameter is left entirely to the schema, with no compensation from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'system log entries from the NAS', and includes the scope 'most recent' which adds specificity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like syncnology_system_info and syncnology_utilization by focusing on logs rather than general system metrics.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. The usage context is merely implied from the tool name, not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action ('Remove') without disclosing permanence, error behavior, idempotency, or consequences for running tasks. This is insufficient for a destructive operation.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for the operation described.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter delete tool with an output schema, the essential purpose is present, but the description lacks usage guidance, behavioral caveats, and parameter context. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'by its id' adds no meaning beyond the task_id field already defined in the input schema; it does not explain how to obtain the id or its format.
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 uses a specific verb ('Remove'), names the resource ('Download Station task'), and specifies the method ('by its id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_path (path-based) or list/create_download_task.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or related tools such as list_download_tasks or create_download_task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic creation action. It omits important traits like what happens if the folder already exists, whether parent directories are created, or any permissions required.
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 redundancy or filler content. It front-loads the key information and is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and an output schema exists, but the description lacks crucial context such as error behavior, idempotency, or whether parent paths are created automatically. This is a notable gap for an operation that could fail or have side effects.
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?
The description adds minimal semantics by associating `name` with the new folder's name and `folder_path` with the parent location. However, it does not clarify expected formats, path restrictions, or naming rules, and with 0% schema coverage, more detail would be helpful.
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 ('Create a new folder'), the resource (`name`), and the location (`folder_path` on the NAS). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_path or list_files by specifying a folder creation operation.
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, such as before uploading files or in conjunction with other NAS operations. There is no mention of exclusions or recommended contexts beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'List... tasks', implying a read-only operation, but does not mention any edge cases, result details, pagination, or permissions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler.
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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly identifies the resource, but could add a note about the return format or any filtering behavior if applicable. Overall, it is sufficient for a basic list operation.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% trivially. Per rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4. There is no parameter information needed beyond what the empty schema already shows.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'Active Backup for Business tasks configured on the NAS', making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'syncnology_backup_task_status', but the verb 'list' vs 'status' implies a distinction.
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. It simply states what it does without mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions (e.g., 'for status, use syncnology_backup_task_status').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly communicates that the operation lists files/folders, but does not disclose pagination behavior, error handling, hidden files, or recursive listing. The output schema is present, which mitigates some lack of detail, but behavioral traits beyond the basic action are absent.
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?
Single sentence with a clear front-loaded verb and concrete examples. No redundant language or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple listing operation with an output schema, so the description is minimally acceptable. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves gaps around pagination usage and tool selection, making it only partially complete for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides path examples that clarify the folder_path parameter, but gives no meaning for limit or offset, despite the schema having 0% description coverage. The agent must infer pagination semantics from the parameter names and defaults, which is a notable gap for a paged listing tool.
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?
Specifically states the action (list) and resource (files/folders under a NAS path), with concrete examples. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_shared_folders (which lists top-level shares) and get_file_info (which targets a single file).
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?
The description implies usage by showing path examples, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use case is inferable, but the agent receives no direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not mention read-only behavior, authentication needs, pagination, or what 'available' means, though 'List' implies a read operation.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no filler or redundant words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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 the zero-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently identifies the operation and resource. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention that it is the starting point before listing files.
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?
The tool accepts zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed since there is nothing to configure.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' and resource 'shared folders', scoped to 'Synology NAS'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like syncnology_list_files, which deals with files rather than top-level folders.
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, such as using it to discover shared folder names before listing files. The description states only what the tool does, not the context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully explain behavioral traits. It states it retrieves 'current' utilization but gives no details about whether this is a read-only operation, the meaning of 'current' (instant vs. averaged), or any potential side effects. This is a minimal disclosure.
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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.
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 the tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, with no annotations, it could add context about what 'utilization' includes (e.g., percentages, time windows) or how the returned data is structured, so it is not perfectly complete.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers all inputs. The description does not need to add parameter details; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('CPU, memory, and network utilization of the NAS'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like system_info and storage_info by focusing specifically on utilization metrics.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as system_info or storage_info. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It communicates that the operation is read-only via 'Get' and lists the returned metadata, but it does not disclose error handling, permission requirements, or how pathological inputs (e.g., invalid paths) are handled.
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, grammatically clean sentence that leads with the action, lists the key metadata, and specifies the target resource type. There is no redundant wording.
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?
With an output schema presumably covering the return fields, the description suffices for a simple single-parameter read tool. It covers purpose and parameter meaning, though edge-case behavior like errors or permission failures is not mentioned, leaving a minor gap.
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?
The schema provides only a bare 'path' string parameter with no description. The description adds that the path refers to a file or folder on the NAS, which gives context beyond the schema, but it lacks path format specifics, examples, or absolute/relative guidance.
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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'metadata' and enumerates the exact metadata types (size, timestamps, permissions). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like syncnology_list_files, which lists files, and system_info, which covers the NAS overall.
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?
The description implies a straightforward use case—retrieve metadata for a known path—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites such as needing the path to already exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via the verb 'list' and mentions 'transfer status' as part of the output, but it does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or mention any authentication needs or edge cases. This is moderate transparency for a simple list operation.
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 concise sentence that focuses on the core function. It uses clear, direct language without any filler or repetition.
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 the tool's low complexity (0 params) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main purpose adequately. It does not mention constraints like whether Download Station must be enabled or any limits, but for a simple list operation this is acceptable.
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?
The tool has no parameters (0 params, schema coverage 100%), so per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter info but none is needed.
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 'List' and the target 'Download Station tasks', also specifying it returns transfer status. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_backup_tasks, which target backup tasks.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when to prefer other list tools such as list_backup_tasks or list_files.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation via 'Get' and mentions the 'last_result' field, but does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, error handling, or authorization requirements.
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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It earns its place entirely.
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 simple single-parameter status query with an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or point to list_backup_tasks for obtaining task_ids, but these are minor gaps given the surrounding context.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that task_id identifies the target task ('by its task_id'), which is somewhat self-evident from the parameter name; it adds little beyond the schema and does not mention where to find the task_id.
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 ('Get'), the resource ('status of a specific Active Backup for Business task'), and the required identifier ('by its task_id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like syncnology_list_backup_tasks, which lists all tasks.
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 phrase 'specific Active Backup for Business task by its task_id' implies this tool should be used when a single task's status is needed and the task_id is known. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It does specify that it returns storage pool, volume, and disk health info, which clarifies the scope of the read operation. However, it does not disclose potential caveats like rate limits, required permissions, or data granularity, leaving some ambiguity for a tool with no annotation support.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundancy or wasted verbiage.
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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It identifies the key data types returned and is unambiguous relative to siblings. However, it lacks usage guidelines and broader behavioral context, which slightly reduces completeness.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. According to the rubric, a tool with no parameters receives a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.
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's purpose: retrieve storage pool, volume, and disk health info from the NAS. It uses a specific verb ('get') and names distinct resources, differentiating it from sibling tools like syncnology_system_info or syncnology_utilization.
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?
No explicit usage guidance or alternative tools are mentioned in the description. The intended use is implied by the name and description (retrieve storage health), but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or comparison to siblings. This is adequate but lacks clear context for selecting among related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the listed fields are concrete. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, the sensitivity of the serial number, or any potential side effects. It is adequate but 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 sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the action and includes concrete examples. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or 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?
The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema exists, so return values are covered by structured data. The description adequately covers the tool's scope and purpose, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to misinterpret.
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?
There are zero parameters, which earns the baseline of 4. No parameter explanation is needed since the tool takes no inputs. The description correctly omits parameter details.
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 a specific action ('Get') and resource ('general Synology NAS system info'), followed by explicit examples of the returned data (model, DSM version, serial, uptime). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle files, folders, backups, or tasks.
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?
The usage is implied: use when general system info is needed. However, there is no explicit when-not or alternative tool comparison. Sibling tool names suggest different domains, so an agent can infer the right tool, but the description itself offers no exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but omits potential asynchronous behavior, permission requirements, or error handling. This is adequate but leaves the agent to infer side effects.
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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no redundant or filler content. Every word contributes to clarity.
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?
The description covers the essential purpose and parameter format, and the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to detail return values. It could mention prerequisites like Download Station being enabled, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The schema provides no description for the 'uri' parameter, but the tool description compensates by specifying accepted URI schemes (http/ftp/magnet link), giving necessary format context beyond the bare string type. This adds meaningful value.
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 ('Add a new Download Station task') and the target resource (a download task for the given URI), distinguishing it from sibling listing/deletion tools. The verb is specific and unambiguous.
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 implies usage for initiating a download via URI, and the sibling tools are clearly different operations (list, delete). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, missing the top tier.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It says 'list,' which inherently implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements, pagination, or rate limits. For a simple list tool, this basic level of transparency is adequate but not enriched.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any redundant information. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema present, the description is completely sufficient. It does not need to explain return values since the output schema handles that, and there are no other complexity factors.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. The description does not need to explain any parameters; the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to clarify.
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 uses the specific verb 'list' and clearly identifies the resource as 'cameras configured in Surveillance Station.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_shared_folders and list_files, which target different resources.
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 it lists cameras in Surveillance Station, providing unambiguous context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the resource is distinct enough that no such guidance is necessary for this simple list operation.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the irreversible nature of the operation and the confirmation gate, which is critical safety information for a destructive tool. This is strong transparency, though it omits minor details like recursive folder deletion or error behavior.
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 two concise sentences, front-loading the action and its permanent consequence, followed by a direct safety instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?
For a simple destructive delete tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, irreversibility, and the necessary confirmation protocol. Missing details like permission requirements or path existence are non-essential given the tool's simplicity.
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?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description meaningfully compensates by explaining that 'path' is the specific file/folder to delete and clarifying the role of 'confirm=True' (only after explicit user confirmation). It does not specify path format or other parameter details, but for this two-parameter tool, the added semantics are substantial.
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 it deletes a file or folder on the NAS, explicitly noting it is permanent and irreversible. This distinguishes it from sibling syncnology_delete_download_task by specifying the resource type (file/folder vs download task).
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?
Provides clear context: it should be called with confirm=True only after explicit user confirmation of the specific path. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative non-destructive tools like list_files or get_file_info, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
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:

[![mcp-syncnology MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/humyai99/mcp-syncnology/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/humyai99/mcp-syncnology)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-syncnology MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/humyai99/mcp-syncnology/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/humyai99/mcp-syncnology)

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/humyai99/mcp-syncnology'

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