monitor_beep_supportedCheck whether an fnOS NAS supports a beeper before enabling audible alerts. Query the device's beep capability for the specified host, port, scheme, and profile.
查询是否支持蜂鸣器。
| 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 | |
| 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. '查询' weakly implies a read-only probe, but the description says nothing about authentication needs, host/connection requirements, side effects, or error behavior for an unreachable NAS.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no waste, which is good, but for a 4-parameter tool this brevity reads as under-specification rather than disciplined 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?
The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully documents the connection parameters. However, with zero annotations and zero usage guidance, the definition is only minimally complete for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.
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% and all four parameters (host, port, scheme, profile) are documented in the schema, including the port and scheme conventions. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource (查询/query whether the beeper is supported), which is clear on its own. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like monitor_beep_events, monitor_beep_reasons, or monitor_mute_beeper, so an agent must infer the distinction from the 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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus monitor_beep_events or monitor_mute_beeper, nor any prerequisite or context (e.g., that it is a capability probe). The agent gets a bare purpose statement and nothing about selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.