Fetch details for one TrueNAS pool by its ID, including configuration and status, to inspect storage capacity, health, and properties.
[READ] Return detail for a single pool by id.
Args: pool_id: TrueNAS pool id (see pool_list). target: TrueNAS target name from config.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | ||
| pool_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The '[READ]' prefix is consistent with readOnlyHint=true, so there is no contradiction, but it repeats what the annotation already declares. The description adds the useful scoping fact that it returns a single pool rather than a collection, yet says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown id or what fields come back. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Args block is compact with one line per parameter. Structure is clean and every sentence earns its place; only the redundant '[READ]' tag slightly duplicates the annotation.
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?
For a single-record read tool with an explicit readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description covers purpose, both parameters, and the source of a valid id. Nothing critical for invocation is missing, though the absence of a vs-sibling note leaves some ambiguity against pool_status and pool_capacity.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does document both parameters: pool_id as a TrueNAS pool id with a pointer to pool_list, and target as a TrueNAS target name from config. That meaningfully compensates for the empty schema descriptions, though it gives no format examples for pool_id.
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+resource: 'Return detail for a single pool by id', which clearly separates it from the list-style sibling pool_list. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the other per-pool readers in the sibling set (pool_status, pool_capacity, pool_health_rca), so an agent must infer whether 'detail' overlaps with those.
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 parenthetical '(see pool_list)' implicitly tells the agent how to obtain a pool_id, which is useful routing. But there is no statement of when to use this tool versus pool_status or pool_capacity, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond that hint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.