List ZFS datasets with id, name, type, pool, and used/available space. Omit target to use the default TrueNAS system; specify one to query a different managed target.
[READ] List ZFS datasets with id, name, type, pool, used/available.
Args: target: TrueNAS target name from config; omit to use the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is carried structurally; the description adds the [READ] marker and, more valuably, the set of fields returned (id, name, type, pool, used/available), which compensates for the absent output schema. It still omits any pagination or filtering behavior for large pools.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short lines with the purpose and the returned fields front-loaded; the Args block is slightly heavier machinery than one optional parameter warrants, but nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description supplies the return fields and the optional target semantics, which is enough to call the tool correctly. It stops short of describing result ordering, filtering, or scale behavior for environments with many datasets.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the single 'target' parameter on its own, and it does: it is a TrueNAS target name from config, optional, defaulting to the configured default. This fully covers the one parameter the schema leaves undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (ZFS datasets) and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, type, pool, used/available). The list-vs-get distinction from siblings like dataset_get is inferable from the verb, but the description never explicitly contrasts them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only contextual guidance is that 'target' may be omitted to fall back to the default; there is no statement of when to reach for dataset_list versus dataset_get, pool_list, or any other sibling. The [READ] tag hints at a safe operation but does not route the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.