app_service_listList the services an installed fnOS app provides, helping you inspect and manage app endpoints on your NAS.
列出应用提供的服务。
| 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 |
| 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 behavioral burden. '列出' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about authentication requirements, whether a session/profile is needed, rate limits, or any other behavioral trait. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the minimal information it conveys.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (so return values need not be described) and complete parameter documentation, the remaining gap is behavioral and usage context. The description does not say which application's services are listed, how they are selected, or how this differs from numerous sibling app_* listing tools. It is barely complete for an agent to invoke correctly without confusing it with siblings.
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 host, port, scheme, and profile in detail. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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: '列出' (list) '应用提供的服务' (services provided by the application). It is clear enough to distinguish a listing operation, but it does not differentiate from siblings like app_list, app_entry_list, or app_desktop_list.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as app_list or app_entry_list, nor any prerequisite or exclusion conditions. The agent must infer its role entirely from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.