TrueNAS MCP

List Pools

list_pools

List storage pools and inspect ZFS health, capacity, and topology; optionally filter by pool name to check status quickly.

Instructions

List storage pools and their ZFS status (health, capacity, topology).

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": "list_pools"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; 'List' implies a read-only operation, and it discloses the data categories returned (health, capacity, topology). It does not mention permissions, result volume, or whether the optional filter changes behavior, so disclosure is only partial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

One short sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource before the returned detail. Nothing extraneous.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Output schema exists and covers return values, and the single parameter is fully described in the schema. The remaining gap is the absence of any guidance on read-only safety or when to prefer this over sibling listing tools.

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% with a single optional 'name' filter already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about filtering semantics, so 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 (List) and resource (storage pools) plus the scope of returned data (ZFS health, capacity, topology). It is clearly distinct from list_disks and list_datasets by resource, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as list_datasets, list_disks, or get_scrub_status. Usage is only implied by the tool name and resource noun; no conditions or exclusions are given.

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