TrueNAS MCP

Search App Catalog

search_app_catalog

Search the TrueNAS app catalog to find available apps or retrieve details for a specific app by ID and train.

Instructions

Search the TrueNAS app catalog for available apps.

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": "search_app_catalog"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`train`	No	Catalog train, default "stable".	stable
`catalog_app`	No	Optional app id to get details for (e.g. "jellyfin").

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and discloses almost nothing: no confirmation it is read-only, no auth requirements, no indication of catalog size/pagination behavior, and no mention that 'train' selects a release channel. It adds only that the search targets the app catalog.

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 key concept front-loaded and no waste. It is efficient but so brief that it omits useful scoping information rather than being well-balanced.

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 need not be explained, and the schema covers both params. However, for a tool sitting among many app-lifecycle siblings with no annotations, the description should at least clarify its read-only nature and its place relative to list_apps and install_app.

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%, so both parameters (train, catalog_app) are documented in the schema, and the description adds nothing beyond them. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Search the TrueNAS app catalog') that is clearly a read-only lookup of available apps. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_apps (installed apps) or explain how catalog results feed install_app, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 use this versus list_apps, or that results are typically followed by install_app. The reader must infer the browse-then-install workflow from the sibling names alone.

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