file_accessCheck current user's access permissions for files or directories on an fnOS NAS. Use to verify read, write, or execute rights before file operations.
查询当前用户对文件/目录的访问权限。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | NAS 主机地址（IP 或域名） | |
| path | Yes | NAS 上的路径，如 /vol1/1000/文档 | |
| 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 burden. '查询' implies a read-only operation and '当前用户' scopes it to the caller, which is useful, but there is no mention of required permissions, error behavior, or side effects.
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 no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple read query and wastes no words.
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 and schema coverage is complete, so return values and parameter meanings are covered elsewhere. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description leaves the agent without context on when this tool is appropriate versus siblings like file_acl_get.
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 adds no parameter-level detail beyond the domain of file/directory permissions, so the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb (查询) and resource (访问权限) with scope (当前用户, 文件/目录). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as file_acl_get or file_property, so an agent cannot tell when to prefer this tool without opening schemas.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites. The single sentence only restates the action; an agent must infer usage from the name and schema rather than from any explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.