mcp-openmediavault

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves status information (a read operation) and specifies the type of data returned (enabled and running states). However, it lacks details on potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which are important for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the status of all OpenMediaVault services') and adds necessary details (examples and output specifics) without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete for a read-only status check. It explains what the tool does and what information it returns. However, it could improve by mentioning the output format (e.g., list or structured data) since there's no output schema, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, as none exist, and focuses on the tool's purpose instead.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'status of all OpenMediaVault services', specifying the scope with examples (SMB, NFS, SSH, FTP, rsync, etc.) and what information is returned (enabled and running). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_smb_settings or get_ssh_settings by focusing on overall service status rather than configuration details.

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 implies usage when needing to check service operational status across multiple services, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives. It provides clear context (monitoring service states) without exclusions, though it could mention alternatives like get_system_stats for broader system health.

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