Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TrueNAS Core MCP Server

TrueNAS Core MCP Server

by vespo92
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

create_snapshot_policy

Automate dataset snapshots on TrueNAS Core by defining a policy with schedule, retention settings, and recursive options for child datasets.

Instructions

Create an automated snapshot policy

Args:
    dataset: Dataset to snapshot
    name: Policy name
    schedule: Schedule configuration (cron-like)
             {"minute": "0", "hour": "*/4", "dom": "*", "month": "*", "dow": "*"}
    retention: Retention settings {"hourly": 24, "daily": 7, "weekly": 4, "monthly": 12}
    recursive: Include child datasets

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": {
      "dataset": "<dataset>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "schedule": "<schedule>",
      "retention": "<retention>"
    },
    "name": "create_snapshot_policy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
datasetYes
nameYes
recursiveNo
retentionYes
scheduleYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'create' implying a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether policies are editable/deletable, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description adds basic context about automation and recursion, but lacks critical behavioral details for a creation tool.

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?

Well-structured with clear heading 'Args:' and bullet-like parameter explanations. Each parameter description is efficient and adds value. Could be slightly more front-loaded with a clearer purpose statement before parameter details, but overall very concise with zero waste.

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?

For a creation tool with 5 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well on parameters but lacks behavioral context. It explains what each parameter means but doesn't cover what happens after creation, error conditions, or system implications. Adequate but with clear gaps given the complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantic explanations for all 5 parameters: clarifies 'dataset' target, 'name' purpose, 'schedule' as cron-like with example format, 'retention' settings with structure, and 'recursive' meaning. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'create' and resource 'automated snapshot policy', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'create_snapshot' (which creates individual snapshots) or 'create_dataset'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, just implies policy vs. snapshot creation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_snapshot' for one-off snapshots or other policy-related tools. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools

Related Tools