Fetch details of a single Trakt data sync using its numeric ID for the authenticated user.
Get a data sync.
GET /users/syncs/{id}
Args: id: The numeric sync id, scoped to the authenticated user. A numeric segment hits a single sync; a non-numeric segment is the filtered list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the path and scoping: it explains that a numeric segment hits a single sync and a non-numeric segment is the filtered list, but this is more about routing than behavior. No mention of response details or side effects, but given the strong annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.
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 concise, with the core purpose in the first sentence and supporting detail in the second. The path and arguments are clearly formatted with labels. A few words could be trimmed, but it is effectively front-loaded with essential info.
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 the simple single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. The key missing piece is a clearer explanation of the filtered list behavior (non-numeric segment) and how this tool relates to siblings. But since the output schema exists, return format details are not needed in the description. It's adequate but not rich.
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%, so the description must carry the burden. It does explain that id is a numeric sync id scoped to the authenticated user and differentiates numeric vs non-numeric segments, which adds value beyond the bare integer type. However, it does not fully clarify the semantics of the non-numeric case (what filtered list exactly?), leaving ambiguity. This is insufficient given the complete lack of schema descriptions.
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 clearly states 'Get a data sync.' with the specific resource (sync) and verb (get). It distinguishes from siblings like list_users_syncs by indicating it retrieves a single sync by ID, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives. The HTTP path and argument scoping add clarity.
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 description provides the path and argument scoping ('scoped to the authenticated user') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus others like get_users_syncs_by_type or list_users_syncs. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions. Usage context is only implied by the tool's purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.