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 mentions the tool lists shared folders with filesystem references and privileges, which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks detailed behavioral context.

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 purpose without unnecessary details. It uses precise language and avoids redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for the tool's simplicity.

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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough for a basic listing operation. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, or system-specific behaviors, which could be helpful for an agent. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in contextual information.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the description does not need to compensate for any gaps.

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 'List' and the resource 'all shared folders configured in OpenMediaVault', specifying the scope as 'with their filesystem references and privileges'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_smb_shares' or 'list_nfs_shares' by focusing on shared folders generally, not protocol-specific shares.

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 for retrieving shared folder configurations, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_shared_folder_privileges' or other listing tools. It provides context by mentioning filesystem references and privileges, but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives.

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