scholar-mcp

Get Sync Status

get_sync_status

Read-only

Report the last standards sync run for each standards body, including added, updated, unchanged, and withdrawn counts, errors, and start/finish times to check sync health.

Instructions

Report the last standards sync run for each standards body. Returns {"runs": [...]}, one row per body with body, upstream_ref, added, updated, unchanged, withdrawn, errors (non-fatal error strings from the latest run; empty on success), started_at and finished_at (Unix seconds). runs is empty when no sync has run yet.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv1.10.0Sep 8, 2026
- addedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +true
```
- removedOutput schema / properties
```
Removed value: -{
-  "result": {
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-}
```
- removedOutput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "result"
-]
```
- removedOutput schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-result
```
Removed value: -true
```
First observedv1.9.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: errors are non-fatal and empty on success, and runs is empty when no sync has ever run, which tells the agent how to interpret a blank result.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the return shape. Every clause carries information: the row fields, the meaning of errors, and the empty-state condition, with 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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, this is complete: it names the rows, defines each field's semantics including error and empty cases, and requires no further inference to call 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the input level.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (report the last standards sync run) and scopes it to each standards body. An agent can distinguish this from search_standards or get_job_result without opening the schema.

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 only implied: an agent infers 'call this to check sync health before relying on standards data'. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a contrasting sibling such as get_job_result.

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