Polytomic MCP Server

create_sync

Set up a new reverse ETL data synchronization in Polytomic by configuring field mappings, target destinations, and scheduling options to move data between systems.

Instructions

Create a new model sync (reverse ETL) in Polytomic.

Args: name: Name for the sync mode: Sync mode ('create', 'update', 'updateOrCreate', 'replace', 'append') target: JSON string with target config {"connection_id": "...", "object": "...", "configuration": {...}} fields: JSON array of field mappings [{"source": {"field": "...", "model_id": "..."}, "target": "..."}] identity: Optional JSON for identity mapping (required for update modes) schedule: Optional JSON for schedule {"frequency": "manual|hourly|daily|weekly|monthly", ...} filters: Optional JSON array of filters filter_logic: Optional filter logic string (e.g. "A AND B")

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "mode": "<mode>",
      "target": "<target>",
      "fields": "<fields>"
    },
    "name": "create_sync"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`mode`	Yes
`target`	Yes
`fields`	Yes
`identity`	No
`schedule`	No
`filters`	No
`filter_logic`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Mar 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states this creates a sync but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns sync ID). The JSON string requirements for parameters are noted, but overall behavioral disclosure is inadequate for a creation 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?

Well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details. Each parameter explanation is brief but informative. No redundant sentences, though the formatting as a code-like block is slightly verbose.

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 (8 parameters, creation operation) and lack of annotations, the description does a decent job on parameters but is weak on behavioral context. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description doesn't reference it or explain what to expect post-creation. For a sync creation tool in a suite with many alternatives, more guidance would be beneficial.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful details for all 8 parameters: explaining what each represents, listing mode enum values, noting JSON formats for target/fields/identity/schedule/filters, and specifying when identity is required. This adds substantial value beyond the bare 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 clearly states 'Create a new model sync (reverse ETL) in Polytomic' which specifies the verb (create), resource (model sync), and domain context (Polytomic). It distinguishes from siblings like create_bulk_sync by specifying 'model sync' rather than 'bulk sync', though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_bulk_sync or update_sync. The description mentions that identity is 'required for update modes', which is a minor usage note, but lacks broader context about prerequisites, typical workflows, or tool selection criteria.

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