baidu_statusCheck whether the Baidu Netdisk app is bound on an fnOS NAS, so you can verify its connection status before file operations.
查看百度网盘应用状态（是否已绑定）。
| 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, yet it only restates what is queried. It does not confirm it is read-only (no mutation risk), nor mention auth/session requirements, though the scope ('whether bound') is a useful behavioral clue.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Efficient, though extremely terse and lacking any additional structure.
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 all four parameters are documented in the schema. For a simple read-only status tool this is roughly adequate, but the absence of any usage/context guidance leaves a gap.
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% (host, port, scheme, profile all documented), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter context, which matches the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas.
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+resource (查看/view 百度网盘应用状态/Baidu Netdisk app status) and narrows the scope to whether the app is bound ('是否已绑定'). This is distinguishable from siblings like baidu_quota or baidu_info, though those siblings are not named explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. An agent could infer it checks binding state before other baidu_* operations, but the description says nothing about that or when to prefer other status tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.