Polytomic MCP Server

get_bulk_sync_status

Check the current status of a bulk data synchronization operation by providing the sync ID.

Instructions

Get the current status of a bulk sync.

Args: id: The bulk sync ID

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": "get_bulk_sync_status"
  }
}

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

B3.2/5.0

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 only states it 'gets' status without clarifying what 'status' includes (e.g., progress, errors, completion), whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), or any rate limits/authentication needs. It's minimally adequate but lacks behavioral details.

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 core purpose, followed by a clear parameter explanation. No wasted words, though the structure with 'Args:' is slightly informal but functional.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics, though more behavioral context 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?

The description adds essential meaning beyond the schema's 0% coverage by explaining that 'id' refers to 'The bulk sync ID'. This clarifies the parameter's purpose, though it doesn't specify format or where to obtain the ID. With only one parameter, this is sufficient for effective use.

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 ('Get the current status') and resource ('of a bulk sync'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling 'get_sync_status' or explain what 'bulk sync' means in this context, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_sync_status' or 'get_bulk_sync', nor does it mention prerequisites or typical workflows. The agent must infer usage from tool names alone.

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