file_acl_getQuery file ACL permissions for a given path on an fnOS NAS to see which users and groups have access rights.
查询文件 ACL 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 | |
| prop | No | ||
| 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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It only implies a read operation but omits permission requirements, error handling, rate limits, and interaction with 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?
The single short sentence is concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a 6-parameter remote NAS tool, so it is not appropriately sized for the complexity.
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 a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and only a one-line description, the definition is incomplete. While an output schema exists, the description does not explain the NAS connection context, the meaning of ACL permissions, or how parameters interact.
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 83%, which is high, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter details, and does not compensate for the undocumented 'prop' parameter, but the schema already does most of the work.
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 '查询文件 ACL 权限' translates to 'Query file ACL permissions,' which is a direct restatement of the tool name/title 'file_acl_get' / 'File Acl Get'. It states a verb and resource but adds no scope or sibling differentiation, and file_acl_set is not mentioned.
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 tool versus alternatives like file_acl_set or file_trimacl_report, nor any prerequisites about NAS connection or authentication. The description provides zero usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.