file_sync_pullGenerate short-lived signed download URLs to fetch exact stored files from a project, either selected paths or all files.
Return short-lived (5 min) signed download URLs for the requested files (or all files in the project). URLs fetch the exact stored bytes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paths | No | Optional: specific paths. Omit for all. | |
| project | Yes | Project to pull from. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses that URLs are short-lived (5 min) and that they return the exact stored bytes (no transformation). It omits permission/auth requirements and behavior for nonexistent paths, but the core behavioral traits are covered.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with the return type and expiry front-loaded; no filler or redundancy.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, how long it is valid, and scope. A note on permissions or missing-path behavior would make it complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including 'Omit for all' for paths. The description restates the omit-for-all behavior without adding format or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Return ... signed download URLs for the requested files') plus scope ('or all files in the project'). It is clearly distinguishable from file_sync_list and file_sync_put by the nature of the output, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
The parenthetical '(or all files in the project)' implies when to omit paths, giving implicit usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites, such as needing to call file_sync_list first to discover valid paths, and no statement of when to prefer another tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.