Syncthing MCP

syncthing_folders

Destructive

List, inspect, add, patch, remove, and view pending Syncthing folder configurations, with writes gated behind an explicit confirm flag that otherwise returns a dry-run preview.

Instructions

Folder config list, get, add, patch, remove, and pending offers. add and patch take a JSON document object. Writes run only when confirm is true and SYNCTHING_ALLOW_WRITES=true. Actions: list, get, add, patch, remove, pending.

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_folders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Folder id or device id for get, patch, and remove.
`action`	Yes	Syncthing operation to call.
`device`	No	Device id query for pause, resume, pending folders, and completion.
`confirm`	No	Boolean 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.
`document`	No	JSON 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.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and openWorld=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds the critical gating detail that writes only execute with confirm=true and the env flag, with a dry-run preview otherwise. It still doesn't say what remove actually deletes or whether patch merges or replaces fields, which matters for a destructiveHint tool.

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?

Three short sentences with the action list front-loaded and the write-gating rule placed prominently. The fragment-style opening ('Folder config list, get, add, patch, remove, and pending offers') is slightly clumsy but wastes no words.

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 five-parameter, six-action mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the action surface and the safety gate needed to call it correctly. It is only marginally short of complete because it omits what pending returns and how remove/patch affect existing folder state.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so id, action, device, confirm, and document are already documented, and the description largely restates that document applies to add/patch and that confirm gates writes. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds little beyond the schema text.

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 the resource (folder config) and enumerates the verbs (list, get, add, patch, remove, pending), which is enough to distinguish it from syncthing_devices or syncthing_system. The opening phrase 'Folder config list, get, add...' is telegraphic rather than a clean verb+resource sentence, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 real precondition for writes (confirm=true plus SYNCTHING_ALLOW_WRITES=true) and notes dry-run behavior, which is genuine usage context. However, it never says when to pick this tool over syncthing_config or how the individual actions map to concrete situations.

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

Deploy Server