file_share_infoQueries share information for a given file or directory on an fnOS NAS, returning its sharing settings, links, and access status by path.
查询文件/目录的共享信息。
| 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 of behavioral disclosure. The verb 查询 (query) implies a read-only operation, but there is no mention of required permissions, authentication scope, or any side effects. Beyond the implied read nature, nothing about how the tool behaves is disclosed.
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 description is a single short sentence with no wasted words and the purpose is front-loaded. It is efficiently structured, though the terseness contributes to gaps in guidance rather than being a structural flaw in itself.
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?
The tool has five parameters and no annotations, while the description is one sentence that only restates the core action. With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, but the absence of any sibling differentiation or behavioral context leaves the definition under-specified for an agent choosing among many file_share_* tools.
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 including path, host, port, scheme, and profile. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline for high coverage.
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 (查询/query) and resource (file/directory share info), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as file_share_list, file_share_admin_list, or file_property, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone why one should be preferred over another.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Given the presence of many sharing-related siblings (file_share_list, file_share_list_others, file_share_admin_list, file_share_add, file_share_del), the absence of any routing or exclusion criteria is a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.