user_listList NAS user accounts to review access and manage permissions. Supply host, port, protocol, and profile details to retrieve users from fnOS.
列出 NAS 用户。
| 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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word '列出' (list) implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination, scope, or what the operation actually returns. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for an agent.
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 that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, for a tool with four parameters and no annotations, it is arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise. A 3 reflects that it is efficiently structured but too sparse to serve as a complete invocation aid.
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?
Given the complexity introduced by four parameters, the absence of annotations, and the presence of many sibling tools, this description is not complete enough. Although an output schema exists so return values need not be explained, the description lacks any indication of when to use the tool, what it requires, or how it relates to alternatives.
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 all four parameters (host, port, scheme, profile) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or syntax guidance beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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: '列出 NAS 用户' means 'List NAS users.' It clearly defines what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as user_list_ug, user_info, or user_frozen_list. A 4 is appropriate because the purpose is clear without sibling distinction.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. An agent cannot infer when to choose user_list over user_info, user_list_ug, or other user-related tools from this description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.