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 users with specific details, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or how it handles errors. The description is functional but lacks operational 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 core purpose ('List all local user accounts') and includes essential details without redundancy. Every part of the sentence adds value, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 (one optional parameter) and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It specifies the data returned but does not cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs or error handling, which are important for a tool with no annotations. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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 100% description coverage for its single parameter ('limit'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying what data is returned ('UID, GID, groups, and account details'), which helps the agent understand the output semantics beyond the parameter. However, it does not explain parameter interactions or constraints.

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 specific action ('List all local user accounts') and resource ('in OpenMediaVault'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_user' (which retrieves a single user) and 'list_groups' (which lists groups). It also specifies the data included: 'UID, GID, groups, and account 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 for retrieving all users with details, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'enumerate_users' or 'get_user'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about the context.

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