Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Penpot MCP Server

Penpot MCP Server

by zcube
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ignore_file_library_sync_status

Configure a date to ignore library synchronization status for a file, suppressing sync warnings beyond that point.

Instructions

Ignore library synchronization status for a file at a specific date/time

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": {
      "fileId": "<fileId>",
      "date": "<date>"
    },
    "name": "ignore_file_library_sync_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateYesISO date string to ignore sync from (e.g., "2024-01-01T00:00:00Z")
fileIdYesFile ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral impact. It only states the action and time scope, but does not explain consequences such as reversibility, effect on sync, or any permissions required. The term 'ignore' is ambiguous.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous words, making it concise and easy to parse. However, the brevity contributes to missing contextual information, so it's not a top score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse to fully inform an agent. It doesn't explain the purpose of ignoring sync status or any side effects, leaving important gaps for a tool with mutation-like behavior.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (fileId and date). The description adds little beyond restating the date scope, so it provides no added semantic value over the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('ignore') and resource ('library synchronization status for a file'), with a time qualifier ('at a specific date/time'). It clearly states the action but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_file_library_sync_status, though the name itself hints at the distinction.

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 such as update_file_library_sync_status or get_file_libraries. No contextual or exclusionary information is given.

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