Reads the configuration of a Syncthing instance, optionally filtering specific fields or targeting a named instance. Use it to inspect current Syncthing settings via MCP.
Config.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | ||
| instance | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds zero behavioral context beyond that — no mention of what fields/instance select, no read semantics, nothing.
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?
"Config." is not concise but under-specified — it conveys no information and is not front-loaded with anything usable. There is nothing here that earns its place.
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 tool with two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotation-explained scope, the description is completely inadequate. It gives the agent nothing to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Two parameters (fields, instance) exist with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about them. The agent gets no hints on what 'fields' filters or what 'instance' refers to.
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 is the single word "Config.", which merely restates part of the tool name and conveys no verb or scope. With four sibling config tools (syncthing_device_config, syncthing_folder_config, syncthing_gui_config, syncthing_ldap_config), an agent cannot tell what distinguishes this
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?
There is no guidance at all about when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling config tool it replaces. The one-word description leaves the agent with no routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.