Skip to main content
Glama
cmeans

mcp-synology

by cmeans
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

file_task

Destructive

Check progress or stop long-running NAS delete, copy, move, or restore operations, and list running operations when no handle is provided.

Instructions

Follow up on a delete, copy, move or restore that is still running on the NAS. Those tools hand off long operations and return a handle such as delete:FileStation_…, because the NAS keeps working after the reply. With a handle: action="status" shows progress, or the final result if DSM still has it; action="stop" stops it, and the operation may then be partly done. Without a handle: lists this user's running operations, which is useful in a new chat or after a restart. Handles only work for the same NAS user. Don't poll in a loop: check when the user asks, or before doing something that depends on the result.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionNo`status` (default) or `stop`.status
handleNoThe handle from a delete/copy/move/restore reply. Omit it to list running operations.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.1
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "title": "Result",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "title": "tool_file_taskOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Addedv0.9.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the NAS keeps working after the reply, stop may leave the operation partly done (consistent with destructiveHint=true), status may return the final result only if DSM still has it, and handles are scoped to the same NAS user. These are real behavioral constraints an agent cannot get from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the purpose, then the handle/no-handle cases, then the caveats. Every sentence carries a distinct piece of information, and the closing polling warning is the right thing to end on.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description supplies what the agent needs about return behavior: status shows progress or the final result, stop may leave partial state, and no-handle returns the user's running operations. Nothing material is missing for a two-parameter follow-up tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns more by explaining what each action yields (progress versus final result; stop with possible partial completion) and what omitting the handle does. The only gap is that it doesn't specify handle format beyond the example prefix.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action (follow up on a running delete/copy/move/restore) and the resource (NAS file operations), and explicitly ties itself to the sibling tools that produce the handles. An agent can distinguish this from delete_files/copy_files/move_files without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit branching: with a handle use action=status or action=stop; without a handle it lists the user's running operations, which is called out as useful in a new chat or after a restart. It also names an anti-pattern (don't poll in a loop) and the condition that should trigger a check instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools