download_listList download tasks from an fnOS NAS, optionally filtering by keyword, host, port, scheme, or session profile.
列出下载任务。
| 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 | |
| keyword | No | 按关键词过滤任务 | |
| 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 states the resource being listed. It does not disclose whether results are paginated, whether the keyword filter is applied server-side, or any auth/session requirements for the host/port/profile parameters.
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 — nothing redundant is present. It is appropriately sized for a one-line descriptor, though it is terse to the point of being under-specified rather than elegantly concise.
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 re-explained, and all five parameters are documented in the schema. Still, with no annotations and no usage context, the definition is only minimally complete for a tool that a sibling-heavy download family makes easy to confuse.
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 host, port, scheme, keyword, and profile all documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about filtering behavior or parameter interaction beyond the schema.
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?
"列出下载任务" states a specific verb (list) and resource (download tasks), so the agent knows the core operation immediately. However, it offers no differentiation from near-name siblings such as download_info, download_files, and download_stats, which all deal with download tasks.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (download_info, download_files, download_stats), and no stated preconditions such as requiring login or a configured NAS host. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.