TrueNAS MCP

Upgrade App

upgrade_app

Upgrade an installed app to its current available version. Preview changes by default with dry_run true; set it to false to apply the upgrade.

Instructions

Upgrade an installed app to the latest version.

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": {
      "app_name": "<app_name>"
    },
    "name": "upgrade_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dry_run`	No	Preview only (default True); set False to upgrade.
`app_name`	Yes	Installed app name.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool. It omits the safety-relevant fact that dry_run defaults to true (preview only), says nothing about reversibility, downtime, or app restart side effects, and does not state whether an existing version must be stopped first.

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 well-formed sentence with the verb and object front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined trimming.

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 not be described, and parameters are fully documented in the schema. But for an unannotated mutation tool with a destructive-by-default-off behavior, the description fails to cover version prerequisites, failure modes, or the preview-then-apply workflow an agent should follow.

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%, and the schema itself explains the dry_run default and its preview semantics plus the app_name field, so the baseline applies. The description adds no meaning beyond that, but it also creates no confusion.

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 (upgrade an installed app) and names the target outcome (latest version), which is clear enough to act on. However, it never distinguishes the tool from the sibling update_app, whose purpose is near-synonymous to an agent, so the sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Critically, it does not tell the agent how it differs from update_app or install_app, leaving the selection decision entirely to inference from tool names.

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