mcp-openmediavault

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a listing operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, what format the output returns, if there are rate limits, or if it's a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks essential context 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 without any wasted words. Every element ('List all SMB/CIFS (Windows/Samba) network shares configured in OpenMediaVault') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and the description's minimal nature, this is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns structured data about network shares. The description doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., share names, paths, permissions), making it inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it correctly focuses on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.

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 specific resource 'all SMB/CIFS (Windows/Samba) network shares configured in OpenMediaVault'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_nfs_shares, list_ftp_shares, and list_shared_folders by specifying the exact protocol and system context.

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 SMB/CIFS shares in OpenMediaVault, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like get_smb_settings (which might return configuration rather than share listings) or list_shared_folders (which might be more general). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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