List configured Syncthing folders with pagination, field selection, and optional instance targeting to inspect folder IDs, labels, paths, and types across instances.
Folders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| 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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. However, the description adds nothing at all beyond that, not even that this is a paged listing of configured folders. There is no contradiction with the annotations, so it is not a 1.
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?
A single word is not conciseness but under-specification. There is no structure, front-loading, or content to evaluate, so brevity here is a defect rather than a virtue.
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 paged list endpoint with four undocumented parameters, an open-world read annotation, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot call this correctly on the basis of the definition.
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 four parameters (limit, cursor, fields, instance), and the description provides no compensating explanation. Nothing tells the agent what 'fields' or 'instance' select or how pagination works.
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?
"Folders." is a tautology that merely restates the tool name's resource with no verb and no scope. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like syncthing_folder_config, syncthing_folder_status, or syncthing_folder_defaults.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent has no basis for choosing this over the many folder-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.