Polytomic MCP Server

trigger_sync

Manually initiate a data synchronization process by specifying the sync ID to execute data transfer operations between systems.

Instructions

Manually trigger a sync to run.

Args: id: The sync ID to trigger

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": "trigger_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

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Manually trigger' but does not explain what happens during the sync (e.g., data transfer, side effects), whether it's idempotent, or any rate limits. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is highly concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and parameter details in a clear 'Args' section. There is no wasted text, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and only one parameter, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects and usage context, which are important for a mutation tool with no annotations, leaving gaps in overall 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 stating 'id: The sync ID to trigger', which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is adequate but not insightful—it meets the baseline for low coverage without fully compensating.

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 ('Manually trigger a sync to run') and specifies the resource ('a sync'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'trigger_bulk_sync', which is a missed opportunity for clarity.

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 'trigger_bulk_sync' or other sync-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the sync must be active or configured, leaving usage unclear.

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