TrueNAS MCP

List Shares

list_shares

Lists SMB or NFS shares on a TrueNAS system so you can review available network shares and their type.

Instructions

List SMB or NFS shares.

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_shares"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No	"smb" or "nfs" (default smb).	smb

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

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It names the resources but says nothing about read-only safety, auth requirements, whether shares include system/internal shares, or what fields a listed share contains – even though an output schema exists, the read semantics remain unstated.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the verb and resource are the first words. Slightly under-specified rather than over-verbose, but structurally sound.

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?

The output schema covers return values and the schema covers the one parameter, so the essentials are documented elsewhere. However, with no annotations and no usage context, the description leaves the agent guessing on scope and read semantics for a very simple tool.

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% – the single 'kind' parameter is documented with its enum options and default. The description adds no syntax or filtering semantics beyond what the schema already gives, 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 (List) and resource (SMB or NFS shares), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like create_share or delete_share, but the verb-resource pairing is unambiguous against the rest of the namespace.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The implicit 'kind' choice (smb vs nfs) hints at when each applies, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions are given. An agent can infer this is the read counterpart to create_share/delete_share, but nothing states that.

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