Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Syncthing MCP

Syncthing MCP

by si-essence
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

syncthing_config

Destructive

Retrieve redacted Syncthing configuration, inspect restart requirements and options, and merge option patches when writes are confirmed.

Instructions

Read the full config (GUI secrets redacted), restart-required flag, and options. patch_options merges a JSON object into options. Writes run only when confirm is true and SYNCTHING_ALLOW_WRITES=true. Actions: get, restart_required, options, patch_options.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "syncthing_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesSyncthing operation to call.
confirmNoBoolean true runs the write when SYNCTHING_ALLOW_WRITES is true. Omit it or pass false for a dry-run preview that sends nothing. The string true is rejected.
documentNoJSON object for add, patch, and patch_options. Official collection PUT routes that expect arrays are excluded; POST add takes one object.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses that GUI secrets are redacted on read, that a restart-required flag is surfaced, and that writes are gated behind both a confirm flag and an environment variable. That is meaningful behavioral context an agent could not infer from the schema alone. It stops short of saying what happens when a write is blocked (error vs silent no-op).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the read behavior before the mutation rules, with no filler. The 'restart-required flag' phrasing is slightly compressed, but overall it is tight and scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers the action set, the redaction behavior on reads, and the full write-gating conditions. The remaining gap is what the caller sees when a write is refused and whether restart_required differs from get in payload size, but neither is critical to correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies that patch_options merges the supplied JSON object into options rather than replacing it, which the schema does not state. It also reinforces the confirm semantics, though the dry-run behavior is already spelled out in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource (Syncthing config) and enumerates the four actions it supports (get, restart_required, options, patch_options), so an agent can map its intent onto the tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like syncthing_system or syncthing_db, relying on the resource name to disambiguate, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

It gives a clear conditional rule for writes ('confirm is true and SYNCTHING_ALLOW_WRITES=true') and notes that patch_options is the merge operation, which implies when to pick that action. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the sibling config-adjacent tools, so usage is only partially addressed.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools