mcp-openmediavault

get_smart_info

Retrieve SMART attributes for a disk device to evaluate its health and predict potential failures.

Instructions

Get SMART attributes for a specific disk device to assess disk health

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "devicefile": "<devicefile>"
    },
    "name": "get_smart_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`devicefile`	Yes	Device file path of the disk (e.g., /dev/sda, /dev/sdb). Use list_disks to find device files.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Mar 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, or side effects beyond implying it retrieves data. Significant gap for a health assessment tool.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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

Completeness3/5

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

While the purpose is clear, the description lacks context on output format, behavioral expectations, and selection guidance among siblings. Given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, it is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the schema already describes devicefile fully. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'SMART attributes' with the context 'assess disk health'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_smart_extended_info by focusing on basic health assessment, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., get_smart_extended_info, list_smart_jobs). The parameter description mentions using list_disks to find device files, which aids in prerequisite handling but not tool selection.

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