system_power_planRetrieve scheduled power-on and power-off plans and status for an fnOS NAS, so you can verify configured startup and shutdown timings.
获取定时开关机计划与状态。
| 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 burden. '获取' implies a read operation, but there is no disclosure of authentication/session requirements, permissions, rate limits, or side effects; connection profile behavior is especially relevant given the login-related siblings.
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 sentence with no wasted words. The purpose is immediately clear and nothing extraneous is included.
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 and 100% schema coverage cover return values and parameters, so the description need not repeat those. However, for a tool in a system with login/session siblings, it omits important context about authentication and when to prefer this query over power actions, leaving it only minimally complete.
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 four connection parameters. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, 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 (获取) and resource (定时开关机计划与状态), which is clearer than a bare name. It does not explicitly distinguish this read-only plan/status tool from siblings like power_reboot or power_poweroff, so a 4 rather than 5.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the name and purpose alone that this is for querying a scheduled power plan rather than performing a power action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.