dpanel_store_syncSynchronizes application store data from a specified URL, updating the store to ensure Docker environments have current app information.
同步应用商店数据。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| store_type | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says only 'sync app store data' without disclosing direction, side effects, permissions required, idempotency, or whether existing data is overwritten. This is inadequate for a mutation-like operation with three required parameters.
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?
The description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks the structure needed to front-load key information, offering no actionable detail.
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?
Given three required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output explanation needed (output schema exists), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what data is synced, what store_type values are valid, or what the url represents.
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% and the description does not mention any of the three required parameters (name, store_type, url). It provides no meaning, format, or expected values beyond the bare parameter names, leaving the agent unable to interpret them correctly.
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 '同步应用商店数据' essentially restates the tool name and title ('Store Sync'), adding no detail about what syncing entails or how it differs from siblings like dpanel_store_list, dpanel_store_deploy, dpanel_store_create, or dpanel_store_delete.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites exist, or what context triggers a sync operation. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.