file_searchSearch a fnOS NAS for files by keyword across all disks or specified directories. Use host, port, and path filters to find files when the exact location is unknown.
全盘或指定目录搜索文件。
| 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 | |
| paths | No | 限定搜索的目录列表，默认全盘 | |
| scheme | No | 传输协议 | |
| keyword | Yes | 搜索关键词 | |
| 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 the action. It says nothing about whether the search is asynchronous (the existence of file_search_cancel hints it may be), pagination, or permission requirements.
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 tight sentence with no filler, and the scope qualifier is front-loaded. It is efficiently written, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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 the schema fully documents parameters. The gap is behavioral: for a search tool that appears cancellable, the description omits async/cancellation context, leaving the definition adequate but thin.
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 six parameters (host, port, paths, scheme, keyword, profile). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?
The description states a specific verb+resource (搜索文件) and adds scope (全盘或指定目录), so an agent knows it searches the filesystem. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like file_search_others or file_search_cancel, leaving the agent to infer the difference.
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 and no mention of alternatives. With siblings such as file_search_others and file_search_cancel present, the agent gets no help deciding which search tool applies or when to use file_list instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.