TrueNAS MCP

Dismiss Alert

dismiss_alert

Dismiss a TrueNAS alert by its ID to clear resolved or unwanted notifications from the active alerts list.

Instructions

Dismiss a TrueNAS alert.

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": {
      "alert_id": "<alert_id>"
    },
    "name": "dismiss_alert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`alert_id`	Yes	Alert id (from list_alerts).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool and adds nothing beyond the verb. It does not say whether dismissal is permanent, whether the alert can later be restored, what permissions are required, or how the alert's state changes.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. But for an unannotated mutation tool with a reversible-looking sibling, the description omits irreversibility, required permissions, and the relationship to restore_alert — gaps an agent needs filled.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented in-schema as the alert id sourced from list_alerts. The description adds no further meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate for one fully documented parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (dismiss) and resource (TrueNAS alert), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling restore_alert, which is the natural alternative an agent would weigh.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The presence of a sibling restore_alert makes the missing distinction material: the description never says whether dismissal is reversible or when restore_alert should be preferred.

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