Retrieve and review errors reported for a specific Syncthing folder, with pagination and field selection to inspect issues and troubleshoot synchronization failures.
Folder errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| folder | Yes | ||
| 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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of what error records contain, whether results are paginated, or how errors are scoped to a folder.
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 words is not conciseness but under-specification; nothing is front-loaded because nothing is said. The text is trivially short yet conveys no usable information.
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?
A five-parameter, paginated read tool with no output schema and no annotation-level detail demands far more than a two-word description. An agent has no basis to construct a correct call beyond guessing from parameter names.
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% across five parameters (folder, instance, limit, cursor, fields), and the description compensates for none of it. It does not explain that folder is required, that instance selects among configured Syncthing instances, or how cursor/limit drive pagination.
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 "Folder errors." merely restates the tool name (syncthing_folder_errors) without a verb or any statement of what action is performed. An agent cannot tell whether it lists, retrieves, or clears folder errors, nor how it differs from the many sibling folder_* and system_errors tools.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as syncthing_system_errors or syncthing_folder_status, and no prerequisites. The agent receives no signal for when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.