app_guide_check_installedBatch-checks whether specified apps are installed on an fnOS NAS, so you can verify prerequisites before following app setup or installation guidance.
批量检查应用是否已安装（装机引导）。
| 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 | |
| app_names | Yes | 应用名列表 |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. "检查" (check) implies a read-only operation and "批量" indicates batching, but there is no mention of authentication needs, network requirements, idempotency, error behavior, or whether the host/port/profile parameters affect behavior. The output schema exists but the description adds no behavioral context.
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 description is a single compact sentence with no filler and the purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple check tool, though it could be slightly more structured by naming the sibling alternative.
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?
The tool is conceptually simple, has an output schema, and 100% schema description coverage, so the description does not need to explain returns or parameters. However, it omits usage context relative to siblings and provides minimal behavioral detail, leaving the agent with enough to invoke the tool but not enough to choose it confidently over related tools.
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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description does not add any parameter syntax, format, or usage details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource: "批量检查应用是否已安装" (batch check whether apps are installed). It also adds the context "（装机引导）" (installation guide). However, it does not distinguish the tool from siblings like app_status or app_guide_batch_install, so it stops short of a 5.
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 "（装机引导）" implies the tool is meant to be used in the installation-guide flow, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. Usage is only weakly implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.