file_team_trash_listList deleted files in a team space's recycle bin by providing its path, so you can review or recover trashed items on an fnOS NAS.
列出指定团队空间的回收站。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | NAS 主机地址（IP 或域名） | |
| path | Yes | 团队空间路径 | |
| 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 behavioral burden, yet it only says what is listed. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether pagination or result limits apply, or whether any permission/auth context is required.
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 short sentence with zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy, since none of the missing guidance is compensated elsewhere in the description.
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 is simple and the output schema covers return values, but with no annotations and heavy sibling overlap (trash_bin, trash_restore, trash_clear, trash_list), the definition does not give the agent enough to disambiguate or call with confidence.
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 host, path, port, scheme and profile are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the team-space scoping (path) and adds no extra format or constraint detail, making the baseline 3 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 and resource (列出 / 回收站) scoped to a team space (指定团队空间), which is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation. However it does not differentiate from overlapping siblings such as file_team_trash_bin or file_trash_list, leaving ambiguity about which trash view is returned.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never mentions alternatives. With file_trash_list, file_team_trash_bin and file_team_trash_restore all nearby, the agent receives no help choosing among them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.