Retrieve NFS share configuration and list exported filesystems to manage storage access.
[SAFE] Get NFS share configuration and exported filesystems
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "storage_nfs_shares"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states 'Get' which implies read-only, and includes '[SAFE]' informally, but does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. Minimal transparency beyond the verb.
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 with a single sentence that front-loads the safety hint '[SAFE]'. No unnecessary words, and every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains what it returns. It lacks details on prerequisites or what 'configuration' includes, but for a simple getter it is reasonably complete.
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 zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description provides no additional semantics beyond the schema, but that is acceptable.
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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'NFS share configuration and exported filesystems', clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling storage tools by naming NFS specifically.
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 NFS configuration but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The context is clear but lacks differentiation from other storage tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.