statusShows the current NAS search session details, including expiry, remaining time, allowed folders, search count, and last error, to monitor access and troubleshoot issues.
Show the NAS search session: expiry, time left (remaining_seconds), allowed folders, number of searches and the last error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by enumerating the returned fields (expiry, remaining_seconds, folder scope, search count, last error), which matters because no output schema exists. It stops short of explaining what happens when a session has expired or is absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with a colon-separated field list and zero filler; every element maps to something the agent actually needs to know.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no inputs, no output schema and rich annotations, the definition covers most of what an agent needs by describing the return payload. The remaining gap is lifecycle behavior, i.e. what an expired or missing session looks like in the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it correctly implies a no-argument call that reads the current session.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('NAS search session'), then enumerates exactly what is reported: expiry, remaining_seconds, allowed folders, search count, last error. An agent can immediately tell this apart from the 'search' sibling since this reads session state rather than executing a search, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: the mention of expiry and remaining_seconds hints that this is a precondition/health check for a search session, but the description never says when to call it (before searching? after a failure?) nor explicitly points to 'search' as the follow-up action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.