mcp-synology

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_file_info

Read-only

Retrieve detailed metadata for files or folders on a Synology NAS, including size, owner, timestamps, permissions, real path, and selected DSM fields.

Instructions

Get detailed metadata for specific files or folders: size, owner, timestamps, permissions, and real path. additional optionally picks the DSM fields to fetch: real_path, size, owner, time, perm, type (the file's extension type) and mount_point_type (shown only for a mount point). Default: real_path, size, owner, time, perm. Unknown values are rejected.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`paths`	Yes
`additional`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.7.0Oct 15, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / additional
```
Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
```
- removedInput schema / properties / paths / title
```
Removed value: -"Paths"
```
- removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"tool_get_file_infoArguments"
```
First observedv0.4.1Apr 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the default field set returned, that 'unknown values are rejected', and that mount_point_type only appears for mount points — all useful invocation-time facts.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a tight second sentence covering the optional field selector, its allowed values, and the default. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical clarifications for 'type' and 'mount_point_type' are load-bearing, not filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be described. For a two-parameter read-only tool the description covers the non-obvious parameter thoroughly and states the default and rejection behavior; only the `paths` input format remains under-specified.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for `additional`: it lists the accepted field values, explains 'type' as the extension type, notes mount_point_type is mount-only, and gives the default set. `paths` is left thinner — it is never stated whether paths are absolute, relative, or share-qualified — which keeps this from a 5.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed metadata for specific files or folders') and enumerates exactly what is returned: size, owner, timestamps, permissions, real path. That enumeration cleanly separates it from list_files/search_files/get_dir_size in practice, though no sibling is named explicitly, which caps it below a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'for specific files or folders' implies the caller must already know the paths, which implicitly distinguishes this from listing or search tools. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives such as search_files or get_dir_size, and no stated prerequisites or failure conditions.

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