zfs_list_datasetsList ZFS datasets with used, available, compression, recordsize, and mount details. Filter by pool or dataset name to inspect storage usage and properties.
List ZFS datasets with used, available, compression, recordsize, and mount info. Optionally filter by pool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pool | No | Pool or dataset name to filter (omit for 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 covered. The description usefully adds the set of fields returned, which is valuable given there is no output schema, but says nothing about ordering, scope across pools, or volume of results.
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, front-loading the action and returned fields before the optional filter. 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 read-only list tool, the description plus annotations plus a fully documented single parameter is nearly sufficient, and calling out output fields compensates for the absent output schema. Minor gaps remain on result scope and ordering, but nothing blocking for correct invocation.
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?
With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'pool' fully ('omit for all'). The description's 'Optionally filter by pool' restates the schema without adding format or matching semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List ZFS datasets') and enumerates the returned fields (used, available, compression, recordsize, mount info), which separates it from zfs_list_pools and zfs_list_snapshots by resource. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
'Optionally filter by pool' implies the usage context but does not state when to use this versus zfs_list_pools or zfs_pool_status. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.