file_fav_addAdd a file or directory on an fnOS NAS to favorites (write operation) for later access. Provide the NAS path, with optional host, port, scheme, and profile settings.
收藏文件/目录（写操作）。
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses that this is a write operation. It says nothing about authentication/session requirements (relevant given the host/port/profile params), whether re-adding an existing favorite is idempotent or errors, or whether the operation is reversible.
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 phrase with zero padding or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a mutation tool with connection/session parameters.
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, but with no annotations and a mutation surface that includes session/profile/connection params, the description omits the auth and session context an agent needs. It is too thin for a five-parameter write tool.
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 all five parameters (host, path, port, scheme, profile) are already documented in the schema with examples. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?
The description names a specific verb (收藏/add to favorites) and resource (文件/目录), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools file_fav_list and file_fav_del, leaving the agent to infer the relationship from names alone.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of the related file_fav_list / file_fav_del siblings that an agent would need to choose between. The only signal is the parenthetical '写操作', which restates the obvious mutation nature rather than routing behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.