zfs_pool_get_propertyRetrieve a property such as autotrim, ashift, or health from a specified ZFS pool to inspect configuration or status.
Get a property from a ZFS pool (e.g. autotrim, ashift, health).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pool | Yes | Pool name | |
| property | Yes | Property name 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 elsewhere. The description adds only the concrete example properties, not return format, the special 'all' behavior, or error conditions.
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?
A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with parenthetical examples that earn their 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 getter with no output schema, the description is adequate to invoke the tool, but it never hints at what is returned or what the 'all' value does, leaving a mild gap for an agent interpreting results.
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 documented in the schema itself, giving a baseline of 3. The description's example property names add slight color but no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a property from a ZFS pool'), and the examples (autotrim, ashift, health) concretize what a 'property' is. It distinguishes itself reasonably from zfs_pool_status / zfs_list_pools, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling zfs_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?
No guidance on when to use this versus zfs_pool_status, zfs_list_pools, or zfs_get_property, nor a pointer to zfs_pool_set_property for the write side. Usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.