Skip to main content
Glama
vish288

mcp-argocd

by vish288
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Argocd Sync Application

argocd_sync_application
Destructive

Bring an out-of-sync Argo CD application back in line with its Git-defined state; optionally prune, force, dry-run, or wait for completion.

Instructions

Sync an application. destructive because prune and force can delete or recreate resources.

Returns the started operation; with wait=True, the final one. revision override needs the applications, override RBAC permission.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesApplication name; accepts namespace/name for apps-in-any-namespace
waitNoWait for the operation to finish
forceNoForce apply (recreate on conflict)
pruneNoDelete resources no longer in Git
dry_runNoPreview only; change nothing
projectNoProject; with it a missing app is 404 and a wrong-project app is 403
revisionNoSync to this revision (needs override RBAC)
resourcesNoScope to [group:]kind:name[/namespace] selectors
retry_limitNoRetry attempts on failure
sync_optionsNoFree-form sync options, e.g. ServerSideApply=true
app_namespaceNoOverride appNamespace; defaults to ARGOCD_APP_NAMESPACE
timeout_secondsNoWait timeout in seconds
apply_out_of_sync_onlyNoApply only out-of-sync resources

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "type": "object",
-  "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further by naming what actually causes destruction (prune deletes resources no longer in Git, force recreates on conflict) and the authorization requirement for revision overrides. It also discloses return behavior (started operation vs. final with wait=True), which is meaningful for a long-running mutation.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the destruction rationale, then return/RBAC notes. Every sentence carries information not present elsewhere.

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?

For a 13-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential risks, return semantics, and one key permission gate, and annotations cover the safety profile. It stops short of describing error behavior or how dry_run interacts with wait, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters, including the override-RBAC note on revision and the wait flag. The description's added value is limited to clarifying the wait return semantics, which is helpful but marginal; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Sync an application'), which is clear and distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like argocd_get_application or argocd_list_applications. It does not explicitly name the nearest mutating siblings (argocd_rollback_application, argocd_terminate_operation) to disambiguate when sync vs rollback is appropriate.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It flags the destructive conditions ('prune and force can delete or recreate resources') and the RBAC prerequisite for revision overrides, which implies usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance (e.g., use dry_run to preview, or argocd_wait_for_operation to poll) and no exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools