zfs_get_propertyRetrieve one or more properties from a ZFS dataset or pool to inspect configuration, or use 'all' to fetch every property.
Get one or more properties from a ZFS dataset or pool. Use "all" for all properties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Dataset or pool name | |
| property | Yes | Property name (e.g. compression, recordsize, atime) or "all" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no further behavioral context such as output format, error conditions for nonexistent datasets, or property-name validation.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the 'all' usage hint. Every clause earns its place.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read with complete schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. A brief note on distinguishing it from the pool-scoped sibling would close the only meaningful gap.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'all' sentinel value. The description restates the 'all' behavior without adding syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the correct baseline.
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?
Names a specific verb (Get) and resource (properties) with clear scope (ZFS dataset or pool). An agent can distinguish it from zfs_set_property by the read verb, though it doesn't explicitly address the overlap with the sibling zfs_pool_get_property.
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 sentence 'Use "all" for all properties' gives one concrete usage hint, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over zfs_pool_get_property or when a single property is preferable to 'all'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.