TrueNAS MCP

Create Share

create_share

Create an SMB or NFS share on TrueNAS by specifying share type, name, and dataset path, with an optional dry-run preview before making changes.

Instructions

Create an SMB or NFS share.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "create_share"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes	"smb" or "nfs".
`name`	Yes	Share name (SMB) or alias (NFS).
`path`	Yes	Dataset path to share, e.g. "/mnt/tank/stores/petr".
`dry_run`	No	Preview only (default True); set False to create.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it discloses nothing about permissions, reversibility, side effects, or mutation risk. For a create operation, this is a significant gap because the agent gets no behavioral context 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is very terse for a mutation tool, but structurally clean and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although an output schema exists and the input schema is fully described, the absence of annotations means the description should provide more operational context. It omits usage guidance and behavioral details that an agent needs for a create/share mutation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema fully documents kind, name, path, and dry_run. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the resource type already implied by the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb, "Create," with a clear resource, "SMB or NFS share," so the core action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as delete_share or list_shares, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description only states what the tool does and gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not explain when to choose create_share over delete_share, list_shares, or other management tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.