TrueNAS MCP

Get Scrub Status

get_scrub_status

Check ZFS pool scrub status and schedules, optionally for a single pool, to monitor data integrity maintenance and plan scrub runs.

Instructions

Get ZFS pool scrub status/schedules.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_scrub_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pool_name`	No	Restrict to one pool by name (optional).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It is a read-only getter by name and carries low risk, and 'status/schedules' hints that both live progress and scheduled-scrub configuration are returned. However, it doesn't say whether history, errors, or last-scrub results are included, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is about as small as a description can be while still naming the resource and scope.

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

Completeness3/5

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 needn't be explained, and with one optional parameter the surface is simple. Still, for a monitoring tool the agent would benefit from knowing the all-pools-versus-single-pool behavior and whether a scrub in progress is reflected — neither is covered.

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% for the single optional pool_name parameter, and its description already explains 'Restrict to one pool by name (optional).' The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get ZFS pool scrub status/schedules'), which is clearly distinct from list_* siblings and from run_scrub, which mutates scrub state. The only weakness is the ambiguous 'status/schedules' phrasing, which leaves the exact payload shape slightly fuzzy.

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. The obvious pairing with run_scrub (start a scrub vs. check its progress) is never stated, nor is the behavior when pool_name is omitted versus supplied — the agent has to infer both.

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