dpanel_explorer_permissionChange file permissions or ownership in Docker containers by setting mode (e.g. 644) or owner username for specified files on a mounted volume.
修改文件权限/所有者。mod 如 644；owner 为用户名。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mod | No | ||
| owner | No | ||
| file_list | Yes | ||
| mount_point | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a mutation ('修改') but does not mention required permissions, whether changes are recursive, failure behavior, or any side effects. It adds only the bare minimum beyond the tool name.
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 extremely concise (two short sentences) and front-loads the core action before adding parameter hints. Every phrase serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Despite an output schema that removes the need to describe return values, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations. It omits critical context such as the meaning of mount_point, how file_list is interpreted, and any safety or permission requirements, leaving an agent with significant 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It partially explains 'mod' (e.g., 644) and 'owner' (username), but says nothing about the required parameters 'mount_point' and 'file_list', leaving their meaning and interplay unclear.
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 states a specific verb+resource: '修改文件权限/所有者' (modify file permissions/owner). It clearly distinguishes this tool from other explorer siblings (e.g., listing, deleting) by focusing on permission/ownership changes, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, with no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.