Polytomic MCP Server

activate_sync

Enable a data synchronization process by providing the sync ID to start transferring data between systems using the Polytomic MCP Server.

Instructions

Activate (enable) a sync.

Args: id: The sync ID to activate

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "activate_sync"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Mar 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions activation/enablement, implying a state change, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if it starts syncing immediately), rate limits, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a clear parameter explanation. It avoids unnecessary words, though the structure is simple and could be more polished, earning a high but not perfect score.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with one parameter), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the action and parameter but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance, making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding.

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?

The description adds minimal semantics by specifying that 'id' is 'The sync ID to activate', which clarifies the parameter's role. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides some value but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema details, meeting the baseline for low coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Activate (enable)') and the resource ('a sync'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'trigger_sync' or 'update_sync', which might have overlapping functionality, so it's not a perfect 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'trigger_sync' or 'update_sync'. The description only states what it does, without context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from sibling names alone.

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