AgentCanon MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

apply_sync

Applies a previously previewed sync plan after explicit approval, verifying no files changed since preview to prevent drift.

Instructions

Applies a previously previewed sync plan after explicit user approval, verifying no files changed since preview.

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": {
      "planId": "<planId>",
      "approved": "<approved>"
    },
    "name": "apply_sync"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`planId`	Yes
`approved`	Yes
`projectRoot`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses two behaviors beyond the schema: a mandatory explicit-approval gate and a staleness check that no files changed since preview. It does not say what happens on a failed staleness check, whether changes are reversible, or what permissions are needed for what is clearly a write operation.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and the approval precondition, then adds the staleness guarantee. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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?

For an unannotated mutating tool with no output schema and fully undocumented parameters, the description covers the key safety gate but leaves gaps: failure/conflict behavior, reversibility, and the meaning of projectRoot. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition, not complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must define all three parameters. It gives semantic grounding for planId (comes from the earlier preview) and approved (explicit user approval), but projectRoot is never mentioned and no format or source details are given for planId.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (applies) and resource (a previously previewed sync plan), plus the governing precondition (explicit user approval). An agent can distinguish it from preview_sync, inspect_project, and the rule-management siblings without reading any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly establishes the entry condition: only after a preview has been produced and the user has explicitly approved. The alternative (preview_sync) is implied rather than named, and no explicit 'do not call without a preview' exclusion is spelled out, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server