app_statusCheck the runtime status of a single installed application on an fnOS NAS by its app name, using the appName field from app_list.
查询单个应用状态。
| 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_name | Yes | 应用 appName，取自 app_list 的 appName 字段（如 fn-codeserver），不是 name 显示名 |
| 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, yet it discloses nothing beyond the title. It does not state that this is a read-only, non-mutating query, nor what kind of status (running/stopped/installing) it returns. It adds essentially no behavior context over the name and schema.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is appropriately terse for a simple read tool, though arguably so brief that it omits useful context.
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, and the schema fully documents parameters. For a single-resource read tool this is minimally adequate, but the description still omits the behavioral basics (read-only nature, relationship to the app lifecycle 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%, with the app_name parameter well documented (including that it comes from app_list's appName field, not the display name). The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?
States a clear verb and resource: query the status of a single app (查询单个应用状态). The word 单个 (single) implicitly contrasts with the many list-style siblings like app_list. However, it does not name any sibling tool to differentiate explicitly, keeping it just 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?
No indication of when to use this versus alternatives such as system_info, status_overview, or the app lifecycle tools (app_start/app_stop). There are no prerequisites or exclusions stated. The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.