app_common_volumeInspect an fnOS application's common volume, or change it by supplying a new volume; omit the value to perform a read-only query.
查询/设置应用公共卷（set_volume 非空时为写操作）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | NAS 主机地址（IP 或域名） | |
| port | No | NAS 端口，如 5667（HTTPS）/5666（HTTP）/443 | |
| scheme | No | 传输协议 | |
| profile | No | 独立 session profile 名称，默认使用 default | |
| set_volume | No | 要设置的应用公共卷（写操作，缺省仅查询） |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the read/write duality and the exact trigger for the mutation path, but says nothing about permissions required, what happens to running apps when the volume changes, reversibility, or side effects.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the read/write scope and wastes nothing. Optimal size for a five-parameter tool whose parameters are self-documented.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a tool that can mutate configuration on a NAS with zero annotations, the description omits any note on permissions, risk, or effect on dependent apps, leaving the mutation path under-described.
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 100%, so host/port/scheme/profile are already documented in the schema. The description only adds semantic weight for set_volume (non-empty implies write), which is the baseline-3 level of added value.
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?
The description names a specific verb pair (查询/设置, i.e. query/set) and a specific resource (应用公共卷, the app common volume), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby app/config or file_app_dir_list siblings, leaving some ambiguity about which volume concept this covers.
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 states the condition that switches the tool into write mode (set_volume 非空), which is implicit usage guidance for a dual-mode tool. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. login/profile), and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.